alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11



               DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended                  Six Months Ended
                                                            September 30,                      September 30,
                                                   ---------------------------        ----------------------------
                                                       1997             1996             1997              1996
                                                   ----------       ----------        ----------        ----------
<S>                                                <C>             <C>               <C>               <C>
Net income                                         $    3,869       $    2,955        $    7,698        $    5,996
                                                   ==========       ==========        ==========        ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding
                                                        7,210            6,921             7,117             6,915
                                                   ==========       ==========        ==========        ==========

Net income per common share                        $     0.54       $     0.43        $     1.08        $     0.87
                                                   ==========       ==========        ==========        ==========


Calculation of weighted average common 
    shares outstanding:

Weighted average of common stock outstanding
                                                        6,796            6,454             6,739             6,435

Weighted average common stock options,
    utilizing the treasury stock method (1)               414              467               378               480
                                                   ----------       ----------        ----------        ----------


                                                        7,210            6,921             7,117             6,915
                                                   ==========       ==========        ==========        ==========
</TABLE>


(1)      Utilizing the weighted average stock price of $43.48 and $37.65 per
         share for the three and six months ended September 30, 1997,
         respectively, and the weighted average stock price of $40.17 and $40.01
         per share for the three and six months ended September 30, 1996,
         respectively.





                                       19
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________ 

### m 05-20337

_______________



### R ODRIGO 

### M AGANA 

### ; M ARIA 

### M AGANA 

### , I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS N EXT F RIEND FOR MARIA DEL C ARMEN AND V ICTORIA Y ERIZZA MAGANA , M INORS , 

### Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS 

### HAMMER 

### & S TEEL 

### , INC 

### ., ET 

### AL 

### ., Defendants,


### HAMMER 

### & S TEEL 

### , INC 

### .; B O 

### -M AC 

### C ONTRACTORS 

### , INC 

### ., Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas 

### m 4:03-CV-1406

______________________________2

Before S MITH , WIENER , and S TEWART , Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM : *
Rodrigo and Maria Magana appeal a takenothing jud gment entered after a bench trial, seeking damages fo r injuries Magana suffered on the jo b. We have reviewed the briefs, t he applicab le caselaw, and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We find no clear error in any of the district court’s factual findings or any mist ake in it s conclusions of law. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially fo r the reasons given by t he district court.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchangeAct of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial conditionand results of operations of the Corporation.     Date: July 26, 2005 /s/ Steven C. Futrell         Steven C. Futrell, President & CEO    * This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, andshallnot be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to theliability ofthat section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in suchfiling.
21
S. 8 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen 

An Act 

To provide for the approval of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom 

of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM 

OF NORWAY CONCERNING PEACEFUL USES OF 

NUCLEAR ENERGY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the provisions for congressional consideration of a proposed agreement for cooperation in 

subsection d. of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

(42 U.S.C. 2153), the Agreement for Cooperation Between the 

Government of the United States of America and the Government 

of the Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 

Energy, done at Washington June 11, 2016, may be brought into 

effect on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, as if 

all the requirements in such section for consideration of such agreement had been satisfied, subject to subsection (b). 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 AND OTHER

PROVISIONS OF LAW.—Upon entering into effect, the agreement 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be subject to the provisions 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and 

any other applicable United States law as if such agreement had 
S. 8—2 

come into effect in accordance with the requirements of section 

123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JIHAD IBRAHIM,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 634 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of April, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue and Justice Wecht did not participate in t he consideration or** 

**decision of this matter.**
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19247]



[[Page 42808]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2428-000]


Just Energy Pennsylvania Corp.; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Just Energy Pennsylvania Corp.'s application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 26, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0969582939fbebcb9beb583a5a0a0bfa2a490b6b5a2b3feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5a3a0b7a6aa8b898c8b80b69095958a9791a583809786cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19247 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Wire Book Sewing Machine Co. *v.*Stevenson.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

January 30, 1882.)

1. Patent — Interference—Decision of Patent-Office — Effect of.

While the decision oí the patent-offiee authorities upon the question o£ priority between interfering patents is not conclusive upon the court, it is nevertheless entitled to sufficient weight to cast the burden oí proof on the party against whom it was rendered.

2. Same.

Letters patent No. 239,927 for improvement in book-binding, sustained.

Hearing on Pleading and Proof.

Bill in equity to restrain infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,195, for improvement in book-binding. Respondents claimed under letters patent No. 239,927, for improvement in book-binding. Respondents, in their answer, admitted that these two patents interfered, hut claimed priority for their own, and set forth a decision of the commissioner of patents in their favor.

*II. T. Fenton,*for complainants.

*Munson & Philipp,*for respondents.

*

Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Butler D. J.,

(McKennan, C. J., *concurring.)*The interference charged in the bill, between the letters patent No. 8,195, under which the plaintiffs are licensees, and No. 239,927, owned by the defendant, is admitted in the answer. The first question open for consideration therefore is, — which of the respective patentees is entitled to the claim of priority of invention, as against the other. This having been submitted to the authorities of the patent-office, was there decided in favor of the defendant. While this decision is not conclusive here, *(Machine Co.*v. *Crane,*6 O. G. 801,) it is nevertheless entitled to sufficient weight to cast the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The only evidence before us is that which the department heard; and an examination of this has served to strengthen the presumption stated.

The second and only other question raised is, are the defendant’s letters void for want of novelty ? Here again the defendant starts with a presumption in his favor, arising out of his patent. A careful examination of the testimony has revealed nothing sufficient, in our judgment, to overcome this presumption.

A decree must therefore he entered for the defendant.
EX-10.I



 Exhibit 10 (i) 
 GREIF, INC. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO THE 

PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 The Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended pursuant to the following provisions: 
 1. Definitions: For the purposes of the Plan and this amendment, all capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such
terms in the Plan. 
 2. Amendment: Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 “Section 5. Establishment of Target Awards, Performance Periods and Performance Goals 

For each Performance Period established by the Committee, the Committee shall establish a Target Award for each Participant. Awards shall
be earned based upon the financial performance of the Company or one or more operating groups of the Company during a Performance Period; provided, however, the maximum Award that may be paid to any single Participant for any Performance Period is
the product of $2.0 million multiplied by the number of 12-month periods contained within the relevant Performance Period. As to each Performance Period, within such time as established by Section 162(m) of the Code, the Committee will
establish in writing Performance Goals based on the following performance measures of the Company (and/or one or more operating groups of the Company, if applicable) over the Performance Period: 

(i) return on assets, and/or (ii) any other objective business criteria approved by the stockholders of Greif, Inc. in accordance
with the requirements for “qualified performance-based compensation” within the meaning of the regulations under Section 162(m). Except as otherwise provided herein, the extent to which the Performance Goals are satisfied will
determine the amount of the Award, if any, that will be earned by each Participant. The Performance Goals may vary for different Performance Periods and need not be the same for each Participant eligible for an Award for a Performance Period.”

 3. Effective Date; Construction: The effective date of this amendment is February 28, 2011 and this amendment
shall be deemed to be part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall
continue in full force and effect without change.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D23- 2210 LT Case No. 2018
- CF
- 00102 -A

_____________________________ R OBERT J OHNATHEN A LEXANDER , P etitioner , v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , R espondent .

_____________________________ P etition for Belated Appeal . A Case of Original Jurisdiction. R obert Jonathen Alexander, Milton, pro se . A shley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent . S eptember 8, 2023 P ER C URIAM . T he petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the July 21, 2022 order denying motion for postconviction relief filed in Case No. 2018
- CF
- 00102
- A, Seminole County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).2 P ETITION G RANTED . W ALLIS , L AMBERT , and S OUD , JJ., concur .

_

____________________________ N ot final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,134<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,065
<PP&E>                                          13,998<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,997
<SALES>                                         39,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,342
<CGS>                                           22,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    385
<INCOME-TAX>                                       150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS NET AMOUNT
<F2>REPRESENTS NET AMOUNT
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7209

CHRISTOPHER DEMONT OWENS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN MCCALL; 

CLAYTOR, Assistant Warden; MAUNCY, Assistant Warden; MAJOR 

BUSH; LIEUTENANT MONROE; SERGEANT COTTER; LIEUTENANT HAROFF; 

INVESTIGATOR SHUGART, Investigator; PEARSON, STG 

Investigator; OFFICER MCBEE; OFFICER DILLARD; JEAN RUTLEDGE; 

AMY ENLOC, Nurse; ALEWINE, Nurse; COMMISSIONER OZMINT, 

Director; BOB OLSON, Food Supervisor, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:09-cv-00278-GRA-BHH) 

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher Demont Owens, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor 

McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Demont Owens appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Owens v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:09-cv-00278-GRABHH (D.S.C. June 16, 2009). 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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ROBERT D. ENGEL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2595 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed May 29, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles Sniffen, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 291 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 291

               Honoring the lives of the 33 crew members 
                          aboard the El Faro.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2015

Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Nelson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Markey, Mr. King, 
   Mr. Kaine, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Carper, Mr. Coons, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
   Perdue, Ms. Warren, and Mrs. Gillibrand) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
               Honoring the lives of the 33 crew members 
                          aboard the El Faro.

Whereas the El Faro departed Jacksonville, Florida for Puerto Rico on September 
        29, 2015, with 33 crew members aboard;
Whereas the crew of the El Faro on September 29, 2015, consisted of 28 citizens 
        of the United States and 5 Polish nationals;
Whereas the El Faro sent distress alerts on October 1, 2015;
Whereas members of the Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force valiantly searched for 
        the crew members of the El Faro; and
Whereas the people of the United States mourn the loss of the 33 seamen aboard 
        the El Faro: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes and honors the lives of the 33 crew members 
        aboard the El Faro who were lost after the El Faro departed on 
        September 29, 2015;
            (2) recognizes the valiant search efforts of the members of 
        the Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force who searched for the crew 
        members of the El Faro; and
            (3) offers heartfelt condolences to the family, friends, 
        and loved ones of the crew members of the El Faro.
                                 <all>
```