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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Three Months Ended                     Nine Months Ended
                                                September 30,                          September 30,
                                          2001               2000                2001                2000
                                          ----               ----                ----                ----
                                                       (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                     <C>                 <C>                 <C>                <C>
BASIC

Net Income                              $  441              $  432              $1,230              $1,210
/ Weighted Average Shares                2,611               2,605               2,610               2,603
                                        ------              ------              ------              ------
Basic Earnings Per Share                $ 0.17              $ 0.17              $ 0.47              $ 0.46
                                        ======              ======              ======              ======

DILUTED

Net Income                              $  441              $  432              $1,230              $1,210
/ Weighted Average Shares                2,615               2,605               2,612               2,603
                                        ------              ------              ------              ------
Diluted Earnings Per Share              $ 0.17              $ 0.17              $ 0.47              $ 0.46
                                        ======              ======              ======              ======
</TABLE>





                                       25
Exhibit 15.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-190123, 333-171011, 333-147724, 333-14006 and 333-9546) of Luxottica Group S.p.A. of our report dated April 21, 2016, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Luxottica Group S.p.A., which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers S.p.A.  Milan, Italy April 21, 2016
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2576 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation 

of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility 

for certain healthcare-related programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 18, 2011 

Mrs. BLACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for 

purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcarerelated programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CALCULATION OF MODI4 FIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME FOR DETER5 MINING CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROGRAM 

6 ELIGIBILITY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

8 36B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2576 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i), by 

2 striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting 

3 ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following new 

4 clause: 

5 ‘‘(iii) any amount of social security 

6 benefits of the taxpayer excluded from 

7 gross income under section 86.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. FELIPE VEGA, JR., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 168 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 29th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of our knowledge that the Annual Report of Form 10-K of Gateway Tax Credit Fund II, Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2011 containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M. Diner

Ronald M. Diner

President

Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.

(the Managing General Partner)

July 1, 2011/s/ Toni S. Matthews

Toni S. Matthews

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Raymond James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.

(the Managing General Partner)

July 1, 2011
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SHARON L. CULBERTSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4641

)

CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF )

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND )

SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS )

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY )

AS OWNER TRUSTEE ON BEHALF )

OF RBSHD 2013-1 TRUST; JAMES )

S. CULBERTSON; ATLANTIC CREDIT )

& FINANCE, INC., AS ASSIGNEE OF )

HSBC CARD SERVICES, )

)

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed July 3, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, Senior 

Judge.

David D. Sharpe of The Law Office of Dario 

Diaz, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Eddy Leal of Eddy Leal, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellee Christiana Trust, a Division of 

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not 

in its individual capacity, but solely as 

owner trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 

Trust.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                Exhibit 11


                   XIONICS DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
    FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTH PERIODS ENDED September 30, 1997 AND 1996
                                                           <C>             <C>
                                                          Three Months Ended       
                                                        ---------------------    
                                                 September 30,  September 30,    
                                                            1997         1996        

                                                        ---------   ---------    
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>                
Net Income (Loss)                                      $(954,215)    $837,040   

Reconciliation of average number of shares outstanding 
to amount used in net income (loss) per share computation:
      Weighted average number of shares outstanding         11,690,697   6,698,934    
      Assumed exercise of stock options                                  2,357,612  
      Weighted average number of shares outstanding,        ----------  ----------  
      as adjusted                                                        9,056,546 


Net Income (Loss) per share                                     $(0.08)      $0.09     
                                                            ----------  ----------  

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10890

Summary Calendar

LOUIS M. DYLL; JOYCE DYLL; EDWARD JAMES DYLL;

MICHAEL ANDREW DYLL; KATHERINE ROSE DYLL,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

PAUL W. ADAMS; ET AL.,

Defendants,

PAUL W. ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:92-CV-698)

February 2, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In May 1999, Paul W. Adams ("Adams") filed a motion under Rule

60(b)(6) in the district court seeking to vacate a judgment entered

in fa vor of Louis M. Dyll, et al. ("plaintiffs") by the district

court in July 1997 against Adams and two other defendants. The two

other defendants appealed such judgment but Adams did not appeal.

On appeal, this Court reversed and vacated the award of actual2

damages and punitive damages in favor of the plaintiffs. The

district court denied Adams’ motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)

and Adams appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

corrected record excerpts and relevant portions of the record

i tself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its

Memorandum Opinion and Order filed under date of June 30, 1999, we

are unable to conclude that the district court abused its

discretion in denying Adams’ motion. Accordingly, the Order of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with TiGenix’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Eduardo Bravo, Chief Executive Officer of
TiGenix, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TiGenix.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 16, 2018



|/s/ Eduardo Bravo       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Name: Eduardo Bravo     | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
NO. 07-09-0264-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 17, 2009

______________________________

ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 110th DISTRICT COURT OF DICKENS COUNTY;

NO. 2367; HON. WILLIAM P. SMITH, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Armando Barrera, Jr. (appellant) appeals from his conviction for driving while

intoxicated. He filed his notice of appeal on August 7, 2009. The clerk’s record was filed

on September 1, 2009, and the reporter’s record on September 25, 2009. Appellant’s brief

was due on October 26, 2009. Neither a brief nor a motion for extension was filed by that

date, however. On November 2, 2009, the court sent a letter to appellant notifying him that
2

the brief was overdue and that it or response was due on November 12, 2009. To date,

no brief nor an extension to file the brief has been filed.

Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 110th District

Court (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall undertake

those proceedings necessary to determine the following:

1. whether appellant is indigent; 

2. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

3. whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of

counsel due to appellate counsel’s failure to timely file an appellate

brief. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S. Ct. 830, 834-35,

83 L. Ed.2d 821, 828 (1985) (holding that an indigent defendant is

entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on the first appeal as of

right and that counsel must be available to assist in preparing and

submitting an appellate brief); and,

4. why appellant’s appointed counsel has not complied with the

previously established deadlines.

Should the trial court find that appellant desires to pursue the appeal, is indigent,

and has been denied effective assistance of counsel, we direct it to appoint new counsel

for appellant to prosecute the appeal. Any and all orders issued as a result of its

proceeding shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with this court on

or before December 17, 2009. Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks,

the trial court may request same on or before December 17, 2009.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DEVIN L. SMITH, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4316

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 5, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; William Fuente, Judge.

Charalampos G. Demosthenous of The 

Demosthenous Law Firm, Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, SLEET, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2417 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2417

To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
  with respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 6, 2011

Mr. Barton of Texas (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Flores, 
   Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Turner, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Lummis, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Scalise, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. 
 Poe of Texas, and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
  with respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Better Use of Light Bulbs Act''.

SEC. 2. LIGHTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

    (a) In General.--Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) are repealed.
    (b) Application.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6201 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as if sections 321 and 
322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (and the 
amendments made by those sections) had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.

    No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding 
energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the 
requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using 
lamps containing mercury.

SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.

    No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the 
energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service 
incandescent lamps shall be effective.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act, the terms ``general service incandescent lamp'', 
``lamp'', and ``medium screw base'' have the meanings given those terms 
pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et 
seq.), as applied and administered pursuant to section 2.
                                 <all>
```
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT 

BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Jamul Ratub El, Petitioner, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2009-140686 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

Appeal From York County 

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-038 

Submitted September 20, 2012 – Filed October 10, 2012 

 DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

Appellate Defender Susan B. Hackett, of South Carolina 

Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for 

Appellant. 
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy 

Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant 

Attorney General J. Rutledge Johnson, all of Columbia, 

for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the denial of 

Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief. We now dismiss the writ as 

improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00291-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 322-615977-17

Before Kerr, Pittman, and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF K.T., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On December 10, 2018, we notified appellant that the trial-court clerk 

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant has

not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s 

record and provided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 

44.3.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, 

we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 

42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 17, 2019
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2556 

To suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of Brazil until such time 

as Brazil amends its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of 

nationals of Brazil to other countries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2011 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of Brazil until 

such time as Brazil amends its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of Brazil to other countries. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF VISAS FOR BRAZILIANS UNTIL 

4 BRAZIL AMENDS ITS LAWS TO REMOVE THE 

5 PROHIBITION ON EXTRADITION OF NATION6 ALS OF BRAZIL TO OTHER COUNTRIES. 

7 (a) SUSPENSION OF VISA ISSUANCE.—Notwith8 standing any other provision of law, no immigrant or nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:44 Jul 16, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2556.IH H2556

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2556 IH

1 immigrant visa may be issued to a citizen, subject, na2 tional, or resident of Brazil until the President of the 

3 United States determines and certifies to the Congress 

4 that the Government of Brazil has amended its laws to 

5 remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of 

6 Brazil to other countries. 

7 (b) WAIVER.—The President may waive the applica8 tion of subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis if the Presi9 dent determines and certifies to the Congress that it is 

10 in the national interests of the United States to do so. 

11 (c) EFFECT OF UNAUTHORIZED ISSUANCE.—Any 

12 visa issued in violation of this subsection shall be null and 

13 void. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2603 

To prohibit the enforcement of a climate change interpretive guidance issued 

by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2011 

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, and 

Mr. LAMBORN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the enforcement of a climate change interpretive 

guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maintaining Agency 

5 Direction on Financial Fraud Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE NULL AND VOID. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no inter8 pretive guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange 

9 Commission on or after the effective date of this Act relatVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:01 Jul 21, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2603.IH H2603

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2603 IH

1 ing to ‘‘Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Re2 lated to Climate Change’’, affecting Parts 211, 231, and 

3 249 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (as described 

4 in Commission Release Nos. 33–9106; 34–61469; FR– 

5 82), or any successor thereto, may take effect, and such 

6 guidance shall have no force or effect with respect to any 

7 person on or after February 2, 2010. 

8 SEC. 3. OTHER SEC ACTION PROHIBITED. 

9 (a) FURTHER GUIDANCE RELATED TO CLIMATE

10 CHANGE.—The Commission may not issue any interpre11 tive guidance with respect to disclosures related to climate 

12 change on or after the effective date of this Act. 

13 (b) VOLUNTARY SUBMISSIONS.—The Commission 

14 may not issue any interpretive guidance that would estab15 lish any requirements with respect to the content of or 

16 format for any disclosures related to climate change volun17 tarily submitted by any entity to the Commission on or 

18 after the effective date of this Act. 

19 (c) CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.—No civil 

20 or administrative action or proceeding pertaining to disclo21 sures related to climate change may be initiated by the 

22 Commission on or after the date of the enactment of this 

23 Act and any such actions or proceedings pending on such 

24 date shall be terminated. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2603 IH

1 (d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec2 tion shall be construed as to— 

3 (1) prohibit the Commission from issuing inter4 pretive guidance with respect to disclosures related 

5 to non-anthropogenic or natural climate variability 

6 observed over comparable time periods; or 

7 (2) terminate an administrative action or pro8 ceeding pertaining to such disclosures. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS