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

                     CAPITAL RE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

           Exhibit 11 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

                 (Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)

                                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                                               March 31,

                                                                     --------------------------------
                                                                       1999               1998
                                                                     --------------------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                <C>   
Net Income from Continuing Operations                                      19,379             20,276
Net Income                                                                 12,936             19,796

Basic weighted average shares outstanding during the period                32,009             31,834
Potentially dilutive employee stock options                                   334                911
                                                                     --------------------------------
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding during the period              32,343             32,745
                                                                     ================================

Basic earnings per common share from continuing operations                  $0.61              $0.64
                                                                     ================================
Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations                $0.60              $0.62
                                                                     ================================

Basic earnings per common share                                             $0.40              $0.62
                                                                     ================================
Diluted earnings per common share                                           $0.40              $0.60
                                                                     ================================
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000827056
<NAME>                        ZEVEX International, Inc

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         3036164
<SECURITIES>                                   2839505
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6162527
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175000
<INVENTORY>                                    6243178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18265444
<PP&E>                                         7710241
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2408161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34394961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5626317
<BONDS>                                        1700000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3434
<OTHER-SE>                                     21550645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34394961
<SALES>                                        5658047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5658047
<CGS>                                          3128614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3128614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3147802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                575935
<INCOME-TAX>                                   255920
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            320015
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   320015
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .09



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,J. Bryan Baker, Chief Financial Officer of FirstCity Financial Corporation (“registrant”),certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          the Quarterly Report of theregistrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (“Form 10-Q”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  November 15, 2010 | /s/  J. Bryan Baker       |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                          | J.  Bryan Baker           |
| * *                      | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Qpursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00 563

- CV

A

. L

. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 419 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 17

- 007487
THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A.L

. appeal s from the trial court ’ s final decree terminating her parental rights to

her child

. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. F ollowing a bench tria l , t he trial cour t f ound by clear

and convincin g evide nce that statutory ground s for terminating her parental rights existed and

that termination was in the child ’ s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(1) ( E), ( O ), (2).

On appeal, appellant ’ s court

- appointed att orn ey ha s filed a brief concluding that

th e appeal is f

rivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

—

Austin 2005, pet. denied) (a ppl ying Ander s pr o cedur e in appeal from t er mination of parental

rights). The brief meet s the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of

1 We refer to appellant by her initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.2

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

386 U

. S . a t 744; Tay lor

, 160 S. W.3d at 646

– 47. A ppellant ’ s counsel ha s certified to this Court

that she provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed her of her right s to

examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. A pp ellant ha s filed a pro se brief. The

Depa rtment of F am ily and Protective Services has filed a waiver of right to file response s to the

Anders brief

s and the pro se brief

.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must cond uc t a f ull examination of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivol o us

. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, includ i ng the Ande rs brief submitted on

appellant ’ s behal f and appellant ’ s pro se br ief , and have found nothing that wo uld a rguably

support an appeal. We agree that the app e al is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we

affirm the trial court ’ s final decree terminating appell ant ’ s parental r igh ts

. 2

________________________________________ __ Melissa Goodwin , Justice

Before Justic es Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Affirmed

Fi l ed: December 5, 2019

2 As she ack n owledges in the brief , c ounsel ’ s obligation to her client ha s not ye t bee n discharged. See In re P.M. , 52 0 S.W.3d 24 , 27 (Tex. 2016 ) (per curiam). If appellant , after consulting with coun s el, desire s to file a petition for review, coun s el should t imely f i le with the Texas Supreme Court “ a petition for review t hat satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. ” See
id. at 27

– 28.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service 

??:Zii7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Peer Review Plan 

Title of Review

Influential Scientific Information

Highly Influential Scientific Assessment

Agency

Agency Contact

Subject of Review

Purpose of Review

Panel Review Individual Reviewers Alternative Process (briefly explain:) Type of Review

Timing of Review Start End Completed (estimated):

Number of 3 or fewer 4 to 10 More than 10

Reviewers:

Primary Disciplines/Types of Expertise Needed for Review:

Agency Designated Outside Organization

Organization's Name:

Reviewers selected by:

Opportunities for Public Comment? yes no

If yes, briefly state how and when these opportunities will be provided:

How:

When:

Peer reviewers provided with public comments? yes no

yes no

Other:

Public nominations requested for review panel?

1 

USDA is an equal opportunity employer, provider, and lender. 
 

USDA Food and Nutrition Service 

??:Zii7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

The reviewers will be charged with two tasks as follows: 

1. Reviewers will be requested to determine if 

(i) the data collection as implemented was appropriate, 

(ii) whether the analyses as carried out reflect the original plans and 

(iii) whether the analyses are appropriate given the actual implementation 

of sampling and data collection. 

2. Reviewers will be charged with evaluating the clarity of hypotheses, the 

robustness of the methods employed to address the hypotheses, the 

appropriateness of the methods for the hypotheses being tested, the extent to 

which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and the strengths and limitations 

of the overall conclusions. The peer reviewers will be requested, as appropriate, 

to suggest ways to clarify assumptions, findings, and conclusions; identify 

oversights, omissions, and inconsistencies; and, if needed, encourage authors to 

acknowledge limitations and uncertainties more fully. 

All peer reviewers will be informed that the Agency does not have funds to make 

changes that require additional data collection, reconsideration of the research design, 

or significant modifications to data collection and analysis methods. The reviewers will 

be informed that the Agency, while it will welcome recommendations that may improve 

the design of other FNS studies, requires an evaluation of the current product that is 

cognizant of the funding constraints. 

Each reviewer will be instructed to supply the results of their review in written form. 

Because this study is considered influential scientific information, reviewers will be 

informed that the Agency is required to make available to the public the written charge 

to the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, the peer reviewers’ report(s), and the 

agency’s response to the peer reviewers’ report(s). 

USDA is an equal opportunity employer, provider, and lender. 

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES WILL BONHAM,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a

corporation; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Does

1-10,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-15045

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02220-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 14, 2016** 

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

James Will Bonham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his diversity action asserting a quiet title claim. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure

FILED

JUN 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Hebbe v.

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bonham’s action because Bonham’s

contentions that the alleged securitization of his note rendered the deed of trust or

note unenforceable fail as a matter of law. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Even if we were to accept the

plaintiffs’ premise[] that . . . the note is split from the deed, we would reject the

plaintiffs’ conclusion that, as a necessary consequence, no party has the power to

foreclose.”). Further, defendant was not required to show Bonham the note or

otherwise prove its authority to foreclose. See Hogan v. Wash. Mutual Bank, N.A.,

277 P.3d 781, 781 (Ariz. 2012) (“We hold that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure

statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’

before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure.”).

Dismissal of Bonham’s action without a hearing did not violate Bonham’s

rights to due process or a jury trial. See Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012,

1023 (9th Cir. 2015) (due process does not require a court to hold a hearing on a

party’s motion to dismiss); Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 771 n.8 (9th

Cir. 1981) (describing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as one device “for

a judge to remove a case from a jury”).

2 14-15045
We reject as without merit Bonham’s contention that the district court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction.

Bonham’s pending requests, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 14-15045
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                      14,159,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,314,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                   354,778
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,315,587
<PP&E>                                       6,793,863
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,235,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,352,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,239,372
<BONDS>                                        381,186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,949
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,773,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,352,744
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,223,139
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,880,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,366,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                78,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,811,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                   707,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,104,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,104,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
June 22, 1999



John W. Henry & Company, Inc.
One Glendinning Place
Westport, Ct. 06880
Attn: Ms. Beth Kenton


         Re:      Management Agreement Renewal
                  Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.

Dear Ms. Kenton:

We are  writing  with  respect  to  your  management  agreement  concerning  the
commodity pool to which reference is made above (the "Management Agreement"). We
are extending the term of the Management Agreement through June 30, 2000 and all
other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain unchanged.

Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the  attention of Mr. Daniel  Dantuono at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.



By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

RECEIVED

JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY, INC.


By:

Print Name:

DAD/sr
Agreement to furnish instruments



 Exhibit 4.9 
  
  

	
	 August 11, 2006



 Securities and Exchange Commission 
 100 F Street, NE 
 Washington, D.C. 20549 
 Re:
      Worthington Industries, Inc. – Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended 
              May 31, 2006 — SEC File No. 1-8399 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Worthington Industries, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is today filing
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”). 
 Neither
Worthington Industries, Inc. nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K, under which the
total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of Worthington Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Worthington
Industries, Inc. hereby agrees to furnish to the Commission, upon request, a copy of each such instrument or agreement defining the rights of holders of the long-term debt of Worthington Industries, Inc. or of holders of the long-term debt of its
consolidated subsidiaries, which is not being filed as an exhibit to the Form 10-K. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

	
	 /s/ John S. Christie

	
	 John S. Christie

	 President and Chief Financial Officer



  

 E-6
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2037 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2037

        To reduce the rate of procurement of DDG-51 destroyers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 1993

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reduce the rate of procurement of DDG-51 destroyers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That not more than two 
DDG-51 destroyers may be authorized for procurement by the Navy for 
each of fiscal years 1994 through 1997.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
     This article contains summary information extracted from the three
months ended May 31, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000827830
<NAME>                        Neal Ludeke
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         654,244
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,678,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,951
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,510,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,678,210
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,093
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               119,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (112,628)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
[Exhibit 32.1]


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


    The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant  to  Section 906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002, that this Quarterly  Report  on
Form 10-Q for  the quarter  ended  September 30, 2006  fully
complies  with the requirements of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects,  the financial condition and  results  of
operations of the Company.


This 14th day of November, 2006.


/S/Wm. Lee Popham
---------------------------------
Wm. Lee Popham
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer