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

**HemaCareCorporationBasic and Diluted Net Income per Share**

| ** **                                                                                        | ** ** | **Years ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                                                        | ** ** | **2006**                                    | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** |
| BASIC                                                                                             |       |                                        |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average  common shares used to compute basic earnings per share                          |       | 8,265,000                                   |       | 8,121,000 |   | 7,831,000 |   |
| Net income                                                                                        |       | $                                           | 1,851,000  |   | $ | 1,655,000 |   | $ | 1,545,000 |   |
| Basic net income per share                                                                        |       | $                                           | 0.22       |   | $ | 0.20 |   | $ | 0.20 |   |
| DILUTED                                                                                           |       |                                        |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average  common shares used to compute basic earnings per share                          |       | 8,265,000                                   |       | 8,121,000 |   | 7,831,000 |   |
| Dilutive common  equivalent shares attributable to stock options (based on average market  price) |       | 830,000                                     |       | 573,000 |   | 320,000 |   |
| Dilutive common  equivalent shares attributable to warrants (based on average market price)       |       | —                                      |       | 153,000 |   | 86,000 |   |
| Weighted average common shares and equivalents used  to compute diluted earnings per share        |       | 9,095,000                                   |       | 8,847,000 |   | 8,237,000 |   |
| Net income                                                                                        |       | $                                           | 1,851,000  |   | $ | 1,655,000 |   | $ | 1,545,000 |   |
| Diluted net  income per share                                                                     |       | $                                           | 0.20       |   | $ | 0.19 |   | $ | 0.19 |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
June 30, 1997 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1997              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      1,162,183                1,162,183
<SECURITIES>                                  297,211                  297,211
<RECEIVABLES>                               6,658,896                6,658,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                5,923,559                5,923,559
<INVENTORY>                                         0                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,194,731                2,194,731
<PP&E>                                     24,519,338               24,519,338
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,360,371                5,360,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             21,353,698               21,353,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         447,669                  447,669
<BONDS>                                             0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                        0
<COMMON>                                            0                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                 20,906,029               20,906,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               21,353,698               21,353,698
<SALES>                                       707,221                1,471,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              749,591                1,618,655
<CGS>                                               0                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              277,110                  612,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               472,481                1,006,174
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           472,481                1,006,174
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                        0
<CHANGES>                                           0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  472,481                1,006,174
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   10.11                    21.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   10.11                    21.52
        

</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 12, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00741-CV 

BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, BAYLOR REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER AT GRAPEVINE D/B/A BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE 

MEDICAL CENTER–GRAPEVINE, SARAH HOLLOWAY, R.N., JOSHUA 

JOSEPH, R.N., AND KATHARYN VIL, R.N., Appellants 

V. 

DEANA BRIDGES, SHANA BRIDGES AND JIMMY BRIDGES, 

INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIAIRIES, 

HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF 

SHEILA BRIDGES, DECEASED, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16354 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Garcia, Breedlove, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

 Before the Court is appellants’ motion to dismiss this appeal based on 

settlement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See id.

230741F.P05 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE 

HEALTH, BAYLOR REGIONAL 

MEDICAL CENTER AT 

GRAPEVINE D/B/A BAYLOR 

SCOTT AND WHITE MEDICAL 

CENTER--GRAPEVINE, SARAH 

HOLLOWAY, R.N., JOSHUA 

JOSEPH, R.N., AND KATHARYN 

VIL, R.N. , Appellants 

No. 05-23-00741-CV V. 

DEANA BRIDGES, SHANA 

BRIDGES AND JIMMY BRIDGES, 

INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS 

WRONGFUL DEATH 

BENEFICIARIES, HEIRS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 

ESTATE OF SHEILA BRIDGES, 

DECEASED, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16354. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia, 

Justices Breedlove and Kennedy 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 As agreed by the parties, we ORDER that each party bear its own costs, if 

any, of this appeal. 
 –3– 

Judgment entered April 12, 2024.
#### Ira K. GREER, Steven I. Greer, individually and as partners d/b/a Inland Wool Company, and Peerless Insurance Company, a corporation, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5588.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

March 9, 1957.

Calvin L. Rampton, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioners.

A. Pratt Kesler, U. S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, for respondent.

Before BRATTON, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN, MURRAH, PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
----

| Dated: February 15, 2011 | /s/ Matthew Boyle                     |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                     | Matthew Boyle                         |
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |                                  |
|                     |                                  |
|                     |                                  |
| Dated: February 15, 2011 | /s/ Paul N. Farquhar                  |
|                     | Paul N. Farquhar                      |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer               |

----
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Ernest Matney, employed by Know Creek Coal Corp., Docket No. LAKE 2010-128-M.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Ernest Matney, employed by Know Creek Coal Corp., Docket No. LAKE 2010-128-M.

meeting_091311.pdf

meeting091311.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS to Celebrate 75th Anniversary During Conflict Resolution Week - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZSqc2OP0LE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-to-celebrate-75th-anniversary-during-conflict-resolution-week\/\">FMCS to Celebrate 75th Anniversary During Conflict Resolution Week<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-to-celebrate-75th-anniversary-during-conflict-resolution-week\/embed\/#?secret=ZSqc2OP0LE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS to Celebrate 75th Anniversary During Conflict Resolution Week” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"ZSqc2OP0LE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 11, 2022) \u2013 The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is celebrating National Conflict Resolution Week this year along with its 75th anniversary as the nation\u2019s premier public agency for dispute resolution and conflict management. Conflict Resolution Week is a week-long celebration to be held Oct. 17-21 and centered around Conflict Resolution […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/75th-anniv-badge-300x298.png"}
EXHIBIT
      32.2


CERTIFICATION
      OF CO-PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2007 (the “Form
      10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in
      the
      Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.








Date:  November
                19, 2007
            /s/
                O.B. Goolsby, Jr.O.B.
                Goolsby, Jr.Co-Principal
                Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Pilgrims Pride Corporation, (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1 for the year ended September 28, 2002 (the
Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: October 31, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|---------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  |
101 A.3d 1075

#### IN THE MATTER OF RALPH V. FURINO, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 000131981).

November 19, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-033, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20—4(f) (default by respondent), that RALPH Y. FURINO, JR., formerly of JAMESBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since May 2, 2012, should be suspended from practice for a period of six months for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client), *RPC*1.15(b) (failure to promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive), *RPC*1.15(d) (recordkeeping violations), and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RALPH V. FURINO, JR., is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to comply with the conditions ordered by the Court on May 12, 2012 (D-100-11 and D^46-11), that required respondent to (1) submit proof of his fitness to practice law, prior to his reinstatement; (2) practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney, after reinstatement and until the further Order of the Court; and (3) obtain and use a Post Office Box for receipt of office mail; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

*31ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*1:20—20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(e); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
#### EPPLE et al. v. TAYLOR et al.

No. 34718.

Oct. 10, 1950.

*223 P. 2d 352.*

Reily, Reily, & Spurr, of Shawnee, for plaintiffs in error..

Wyatt, Wyatt & Edwards, of Shawnee, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs commenced an action to enjoin the defendants from the use of a driveway and garage. Judgment was for the defendants, and plaintiffs have appealed.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the question presented on the appeal has become moot by reason of a conveyance of the property and that the appeal is for delay only. This court called for a response to the motion to dismiss and none has been filed.

We have held that the Supreme Court will not attempt to determine abstract, hypothetical, or moot questions, but, where it is made to appear that the questions brought up for review have become moot, the proceedings will be dismissed. Harden v. Morris et al., 198 Okla. 398, 179 P. 2d 144; Glass et al. v. Banfield Bros. Packing Co., 168 Okla. 217, 32 P. 2d 713; Douglas v. Baker, 167 Okla. 348, 29 P. 2d 619; Campbell v. Reynolds, 167 Okla. 365, 29 P. 2d 941; State ex rel. Rives v. Halley, 167 Okla. 504, 30 P. 2d 915; Hudson v. Moore, 169 Okla. 12, 35 P. 2d 886.

It being made reasonably to appear that the appeal is moot and should be dismissed, it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

DAVISON, C.J., ARNOLD, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, HALLEY, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1
         Certificate under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

<PAGE>

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electronic Control Security
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Arthur Barchenko, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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
Company.


                           /s/ Arthur Barchenko
                           --------------------
                           Arthur Barchenko
                           President