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

SPECIALTY MORTGAGE TRUST, INC.
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
EXHIBIT 11


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS  THREE MONTHS   NINE MONTHS   NINE MONTHS
                                                            ENDED         ENDED          ENDED         ENDED
                                                        SEPTEMBER 30, SEPTEMBER 30,  SEPTEMBER 30, SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                             2001          2000           2001          2000
                                                        ------------- -------------  ------------- -------------
                                                         (UNAUDITED)   (UNAUDITED)    (UNAUDITED)   (UNAUDITED)
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
Basic

     Average Common Shares Outstanding                      340,400       329,809       338,645       323,428

     Net Earnings Attributable to Common Stock              213,286        70,414     1,386,595       846,975

     Per Share Amount                                          0.63          0.21          4.09          2.62


Diluted

     Average Common Shares Outstanding                      340,400       329,809       338,645       323,428

     Net effect of conversion of preferred shares
          outstanding during the period                   5,750,412     4,585,695     5,044,492     4,114,917

     Net effect of dilutive stock options
          outstanding during the period - based
          on the treasury Stock method                       43,399        65,422        43,399        65,422

          Total                                           6,134,211     4,980,926     5,426,536     4,503,767

     Net Income                                           1,626,872     1,229,336     4,201,702     3,154,943

     Per Share Amount                                           .27           .25           .77           .70
</TABLE>

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements




                                       19
# C_2006224EN.01002502.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

(Case C-314/06)

(2006/C 224/47)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Pipeline Méditerranée and Rhône

Applicant:

Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concept of force majeure giving rise to losses of products under duty suspension arrangements, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1), be interpreted as meaning unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the approved warehousekeeper who seeks to rely on those circumstances in support of its application for exemption from duty, or is it sufficient that the approved warehousekeeper could not have avoided those circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of force majeure giving rise to losses of products under duty suspension arrangements, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1), be interpreted as meaning unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the approved warehousekeeper who seeks to rely on those circumstances in support of its application for exemption from duty, or is it sufficient that the approved warehousekeeper could not have avoided those circumstances?

1

| 2. | Can losses of part of products which have leaked from a pipeline due to their liquid nature and to the characteristics of the ground on which they spilled, which hindered their recovery and led to the levying of duty on them, be regarded as inherent in the nature of the products within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can losses of part of products which have leaked from a pipeline due to their liquid nature and to the characteristics of the ground on which they spilled, which hindered their recovery and led to the levying of duty on them, be regarded as inherent in the nature of the products within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12?

---

(1)  OJ L 76, p.l

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1119 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1119

To amend the Act of August 9, 1950, to continue funding of the Coastal 
           Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 1999

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Act of August 9, 1950, to continue funding of the Coastal 
           Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND 
              RESTORATION ACT.

    Section 4(a) of the Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777c(a)), is 
amended in the second sentence by striking ``1999'' and inserting 
``2009''.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-36.htm


    Exhibit
10.36

    EXHIBIT
C

     

    EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

     

    First
Addendum

     

    FIRST
ADDENDUM, dated as of, 2008 (“First Addendum”) to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT,
dated as of, 2008, between Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (“Advance” or the
“Company”), a Delaware corporation, and Jimmie L. Wade (the “Executive”) (the
“Agreement”).

     

    The
Company and the Executive agree as follows:

     

    1.          
Modification
of Section 4(d) of the Agreement.  Effective upon execution of
this First Addendum by the Company and the Executive, Section 4(d) of the
Agreement shall be modified by adding a new subsection 4(d)(vi) as follows:


     

    4.           Termination
of Employment.

     

    (d) Termination
by the Company Other than for Due Cause, Death or Disability.

    (vi)       
Retirement.  Any
termination of the Executive’s employment before April 9, 2009, other than
termination of employment due to Death or Disability will be deemed a
“Retirement” as that term is used with respect to equity awards granted to the
Executive pursuant to the Company’s 2004 LTIP or any successor
plan.   

    


    2. Full
Force and Effect.   Except for those terms and provisions
modified herein, all other terms and conditions in the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect. 

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.

     

    
      
        	Advance Auto Parts, Inc. 	 	 	Executive 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	 	(SEAL) 	 	Signature:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Print
      Name: 	 	 	 	 
      Print Name: 	 Jimmie L.
      Wade	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title: 	 	 	 	Address: 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	   	 
	Address:
# C_2007122EN.01000201.xml

| 2.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

3,82 % on 1 June 2007

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 June 2007

(2007/C 122/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3436 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 163,81 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,449 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67925 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,316 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6514 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 82,5 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,111 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,285 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,32 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,815 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2646 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,863 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7638 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6214 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4335 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4926 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8163 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0548 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 247,4 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5686 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2749 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3119 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 859,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5669 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,007 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,807 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,213 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3436

JPY

Japanese yen

163,81

DKK

Danish krone

7,449

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67925

SEK

Swedish krona

9,316

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6514

ISK

Iceland króna

82,5

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,111

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

28,285

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,32

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,815

RON

Romanian leu

3,2646

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,863

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7638

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6214

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4335

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4926

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8163

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0548

KRW

South Korean won

1 247,4

ZAR

South African rand

9,5686

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2749

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3119

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 859,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5669

PHP

Philippine peso

62,007

RUB

Russian rouble

34,807

THB

Thai baht

44,213

---

(1)

1

Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
§ 7.27 Declassification and downgrading. ( a ) Classified information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification. Declassification and downgrading is governed by part 3 of Executive Order 13526, implementing ISOO directives at 32 CFR part 2001, subpart C, and applicable internal DHS direction provided by the Office of the Chief Security Officer.
( b ) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority, the originator's successor if that position has original classification authority, or a supervisory official of either if that position has original classification authority, or, by officials delegated such authority in writing by the Secretary or the Chief Security Officer, or, pursuant to section 3.1.(e) of Executive Order 13526, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
( c ) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under Executive Order 13526 requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases during declassification reviews, the need to protect classified information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. If it appears that the public interest in disclosure of the information may outweigh the need to protect the information, the declassification reviewing official shall refer the information with a recommendation for decision to the Chief Security Officer. The Chief Security Officer shall review the information and after consulting with the applicable original classification authority and other components and agencies with equities, make a recommendation to the Secretary on whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. The Secretary shall decide whether to declassify the information. The decision of the Secretary shall be final. This provision does not amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification or create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
( d ) Each component shall develop schedules for declassification of records in the National Archives.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

# PD-1(R): MA, MD, & PA Hazardous Waste Vehicle Bonding Requirements
#### Hiram Reed v. Salome C. West *et al.*

Res *adjthjicata—decisions of Supreme Court.*The Supreme Court has no power to review its own judgments, except upon a petition for a rehearing, presented in accordance with the rules established for that purpose.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. Silvanos Wilcox, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Wheaton, Smith *&*McDole, for the appellant.

Messrs. Mayborne & Brown, for the appellees.

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This cause was before this court at a former term, 55 Ill. 242. A full and accurate statement of the facts appear in the opinion then delivered. Some additional testimony has been taken, but we are unable, after a most careful consideration, to discover wherein the case differs materially from that presented in the former record.

The facts are substantially alike, and the questions of law are the same. Upon a full review of the facts, and a careful consideration of the questions of law raised, the court was of opinion, all the members concurring, the case presented no grounds for equitable relief.

Although the transaction originally presented the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, yet, it clearly appeared, the equity of redemption of the mortgagor had been extinguished for a valuable consideration. Ho fraud was practiced, nor undue influence used, in procuring the equitable estate of appellant, and no reason was shown why the sale should be rescinded.

*480We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the judgment then pronounced, and the questions of law being practically identical with the case made in the previous record, the former judgment must be held to be conclusive of the rights of the parties. This court has no power to review its previous judgments, except upon a petition for rehearing, presented in accordance with the rules established for that purpose. *Ogden*v. *Larrabee, post,*p. 510.

It is urged the court misapprehended the facts in the former record, or it would have reached a different conclusion. If the objection had any foundation in fact, it is now too late to urge it upon the attention of the court. But a reconsideration shows there was no misapprehension of the facts.

There can scarcely be a doubt we would reach the same conclusion, upon the present record, that we arrived at in the former decision, if we should again consider the case; and the decree of the circuit court having been rendered in accordance with the views then expressed, it must be affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Pentagon Force Protection Agency

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Our Agency    -  Leadership      -  Chris Bargery             
    -  Lewis Ratchford Jr             
    -  Shelley A Verdejo             
    -  Dr. James A. Day             
    -  Woodrow G. Kusse 
  -  Publications             
  -  Our Mission, Vision & Values             
  -  History             
  -  PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)             
  -  PFPA Extranet (CAC Only) 
-  Topics    -  Visiting the Pentagon             
  -  CAC Issuance             
  -  Parking Information             
  -  Flags Over Pentagon             
  -  Vehicle Towing             
  -  Reporting Suspicious Activity             
  -  Lost & Found 
-  Careers		 
-  Contact		 

HomeContact

**Pentagon Operations Center:**Emergency: 703-697-5555Non-Emergency: 703-697-1001 Office of Professional Responsibility:  703-695-0412 General Inquiries:  pfpa.pentagon.cco.mbx.general@mail.mil Interactive Customer Evaluation Feedback:  Click Here (ICE :: Service Provider List (disa.mil)) Freedom of Information Act Request:  Click Here (Freedom of Information Division (whs.mil))

**HOME /  PRIVACY ACT  /   NO FEAR ACT /   ACCESSIBILITY  /  FOIA  /  QUICK LINKSPFPA Extranet (CAC Only)   /   PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)**

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
CC Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898


Amendment to an

OPTION TO PURCHASE dated April 10, 2008













BETWEEN: 




John Deakle and Gwen Deakle (the “Sellers”)







AND:







LEXARIA CORP, a corporation incorporated in the State of Nevada (the “Purchaser”)










WHEREAS:




A.

Purchaser entered into an Option to Purchase agreement with the Sellers on April 10, 2008 to purchase certain identified oil and gas assets in Mississippi USA, whereby among other terms, Purchaser agreed to provide notice of intent to exercise Option by May 30, 2008 and to execute closing of the proposed transaction 20 days later; and




B.

Purchaser has requested, and Sellers have agreed, to allow 31 days additional time to execute the contemplated transaction.










NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree each with the other as follows:







1.

The Sellers agree to extend the date referred to in item (6) of the Option to Purchase Agreement, to June 30, 2008; and

2.

The Sellers agree to extend the date referred to in item (9) of the Option to Purchase Agreement, to July 18; and.

3.

The Purchaser agrees to submit to the Sellers an immediate additional payment of US$25,000 as payment for the additional time contemplated herein to close the transaction, subject to all the terms and conditions of the Option to Purchase agreement; and

4.

The Purchaser agrees to adjust the final purchase price from the originally agreed $4,500,000 to a new total price of $4,689,000 due upon closing and otherwise subject to all the terms of the Option to Purchase Agreement; and

5.

All other terms and conditions of the April 10, 2008 Option to Purchase Agreement remain valid and enforceable in all respects.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment as of the 2nd day of June, 2008.







SELLERS:







_________________________________

_________________________________

John M. Deakle

Gwen Deakle













PURCHASER:










_________________________________

Lexaria Corp.

Chris Bunka, as President
§ 100.155 Uncompensated Internet activity by individuals that is not an expenditure. ( a ) When an individual or a group of individuals, acting independently or in coordination with any candidate, authorized committee, or political party committee, engages in Internet activities for the purpose of influencing a Federal election, neither of the following is an expenditure by that individual or group of individuals: ( 1 ) The individual's uncompensated personal services related to such Internet activities;
( 2 ) The individual's use of equipment or services for uncompensated Internet activities, regardless of who owns the equipment and services.
( b ) *Internet activities.* For the purposes of this section, the term “Internet activities” includes, but is not limited to: Sending or forwarding electronic messages; providing a hyperlink or other direct access to another person's website; blogging; creating, maintaining, or hosting a website; paying a nominal fee for the use of another person's website; and any other form of communication distributed over the Internet.
( c ) *Equipment and services.* For the purposes of this section, the term “equipment and services” includes, but is not limited to: Computers, software, Internet domain names, Internet Service Providers (ISP), and any other technology that is used to provide access to or use of the Internet.
( d ) Paragraph (a) of this section also applies to any corporation that is wholly owned by one or more individuals, that engages primarily in Internet activities, and that does not derive a substantial portion of its revenues from sources other than income from its Internet activities.
( e ) This section does not exempt from the definition of expenditure: ( 1 ) Any payment for a public communication (as defined in 11 CFR 100.26) other than a nominal fee;
( 2 ) Any payment for the purchase or rental of an e-mail address list made at the direction of a political committee; or
( 3 ) Any payment for an e-mail address list that is transferred to a political committee.
[71 FR 18613, Apr. 12, 2006, as amended at 81 FR 94240, Dec. 23, 2016]