alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

|                                        |                                      | Three Months Ended
September 30 |   | Nine Months Ended
September 30 |           
|--------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------ | ----------
|
|Net (loss) per sharebasic and diluted: |                                      |                                 |   |                                |           
|                                        | Numerator, net (loss)                |                                 | $ | (1,180,880                     | )         
|                                        |                                      |                                 |   |                                |           
|                                        | Denominator, weighted average shares |                                 |   |                                |           
|                                        |                                      | Outstanding                     |   |                                | 21,636,012
|                                        |                                      |                                 |   |                                |           
|Net (loss) per sharebasic and diluted: |                                      |                                 |   |                                |           
|                                        | Net (loss) per share                 |                                 | $ | (0.05                          | )         
|                                        |                                      |                                 |   |                                |           

---

QuickLinks
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00512

- CV

MR. W FIREWORKS, INC.

,

Appellant

v.

CONCHO ACQUISITION PARTNERS, LLC

,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court

, Bexa r County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- CI

- 03698

Honorable Tina Torres , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was originally due Decemb er 27, 2021, but was not filed. On December 28, 2021, the district clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the clerk’s record was not filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the r ecord and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We therefore ORDER that appellant provide written proof to this court that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’ s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee by Janua ry 18, 2022

. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b)

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Just iceIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-97450, No.33-86116, No. 333-14601 and No. 333-48446) on Form S-8 of PVF Capital Corp. of our report datedAugust 31, 2007, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of PVF CapitalCorp. as of June 30, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years ended June 30, 2007, 2006, and 2005 and ourreport dated the same date on PVF Capital Corp.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of PVF Capital Corp., which reports are included in Form 10-K for PVF CapitalCorp. for the year ended June 30, 2007./s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLCCrowe Chizek and Company LLCCleveland, Ohio
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
balance sheet/statement operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      20,671,449
<RECEIVABLES>                              100,993,205
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0
<PP&E>                                       8,060,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             133,812,675
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                   4,508,895
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                         24,843,858
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       257,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,794,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               133,812,675
<TRADING-REVENUE>                           22,544,227
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         3,715,033
<COMMISSIONS>                                        0
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  731,157
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                               3,452,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,466,574)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                (14,466,574)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,466,574)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rafael MARTINEZ-OGARRIO, Appellant.

No. 07-3280.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2008.

Filed: April 25, 2008.

Frederick D. Franklin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Julie Beth Hansen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Martinez-Ogarrio (Martinez) appeals the 18-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to transporting and attempting to transport illegal aliens within the United States for commercial advantage and private gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Martinez’s sentence is unreasonable.

We conclude that Martinez’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable, because nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (reasonableness factors).

After reviewing 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. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Exhibit 32.1


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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas Resources  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Joseph Rizzuti,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Antonio Doria
-----------------------------------
Antonio Doria
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis ORONA-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50857

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 5, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alexander Lee Calhoun, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*349Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Luis Orona-Castillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Orona-Castillo has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Orona-Castillo’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Orona-Castillo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. OronaCastillo’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. *Cf. United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar VIDALES-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10259

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Reynolds Biggs, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Bonita L. Gun-den, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Vidales-Morales (Vi-dales) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Vidales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Vidales’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Vidales’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior LITTLE, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerone Junior Little, a/k/a Tubby Little, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 11-6140, 11-6141, 11-6142, 11-6143.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Jerone Junior Little, Appellant Pro Se. Michael A. DeFranco, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerone Junior Little seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion challenging multiple convictions arising from four bank robberies. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Little that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Little has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.0

                      List of Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Subsidiaries                                                        Shareholders            Ownership %
------------                                                        ------------            -----------
<S>                                                                 <C>                     <C>

Business Objects Australia Pty Ltd.........................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Asia Pacific Ptd Ltd......................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Holding B.V...............................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Nihon B.V.................................         Business Objects Holding B.V            100%
Business Objects Nederland B.V.............................         Business Objects Holding B.V            100%
Business Objects BeLux S.A./N.V............................         Business Objects S.A.                 99.96%
Business Objects Deutschland GmbH..........................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Espana S.L................................         Business Objects S.A.                 99.98%
Business Objects Italia S.p.A..............................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Nordic A.B................................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Suisse S.A................................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects (U.K.) Ltd................................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Americas, Inc.............................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Business Objects Canada, Inc...............................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Prophecy Holding B.V.......................................         Business Objects S.A.                   100%
Prophecy Automatisering B.V................................         Prophecy Holding B.V                    100%
Ithena, Inc................................................         Business Objects Americas, Inc.         100%
Set Analyzer Ltd...........................................         Business Objects Americas, Inc.         100%
</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WILLIAM A. WHITE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:13

- cr - 00013

- GEC

- 1; 7:18

- cv - 81307

- GEC

RSB )

Submitted : September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. William A. White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William A. White se eks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)( 1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distr ict court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We ha ve independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas K. Beplate, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business
issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/Douglas K. Beplate
Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive Officer