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

                     CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER

                                  MERGING

               CHINA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                    INTO

                       AVIC GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.

     AVIC Group International, Inc. ("Avic" or "Corporation"), a 
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, DOES HEREBY 
CERTIFY:

     FIRST: That this Corporation was incorporated on the 20th day of June, 
1996, pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     SECOND: That this Corporation owns all of the outstanding shares of the 
stock of China Telecommunications and Technologies, Inc. ("China"), a 
corporation incorporated on the 13th day of May, 1997, pursuant to the 
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     THIRD: That this Corporation, by the following resolutions of its Board 
of Directors, duly adopted at a meeting held on the 26th day of February, 
1997, determined to merge into itself said China:

          RESOLVED: That AVIC merge, and it hereby does merge into itself 
          said China and assumes all of its obligations; and it is

          RESOLVED FURTHER: That the merger shall become effective upon 
          filing with the Delaware Secretary of State; and it is

          RESOLVED FURTHER: That the proper officer of this Corporation be 
          and he or she is hereby directed to make and execute a Certificate 
          of Ownership and Merger setting forth a copy of the resolutions to 
          merge China and assume its liabilities and obligations, and the 
          date of adoption thereof, and to cause the same to be filed with 
          the Secretary of State and to do all acts and things whatsoever, 
          whether within or without the State of Delaware, which may be in 
          anywise necessary or proper to effect said merger, and it is

          RESOLVED FURTHER: That this Corporation change its corporate name 
          in connection with the merger, by amending Article FIRST of the 
          Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation to read 
          as follows:

                    "FIRST: The name of the corporation is AmTec, Inc."

     FOURTH: Anything herein or elsewhere to the contrary notwithstanding, 
this merger may be amended or terminated and abandoned by the Board of 
Directors of AVIC at any time prior to the date of filing the merger with the 
Secretary of State.

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said AVIC has caused this Certificate to be signed 
by Joseph R. Wright, Jr., its Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and 
President, this 14th day of May, 1997.


                                    AVIC GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                                     By /s/ Joseph B. Wright, Jr.
                                       ---------------------------------
                                        Joseph B. Wright, Jr.,
                                        Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                        and President
# C_2010246EN.01002001.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A. v Administración del Estado

(Case C-285/10)

()

2010/C 246/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Campsa Estaciones de Servicio S.A.

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Did the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 permit Member States to enact legislation whereby, for transactions between connected parties where the price was patently lower than the open market value, the taxable amount was other than that determined by Article 11A.(1)(a) to be generally applicable — namely, the consideration — by extending the scope of the rules on application of goods and services for private use (as was done by Article 79(5) of the Law on VAT, before its amendment by Law 36/2006 of 29 November), when the specific procedure provided for in Article 27 of the Sixth Directive to obtain authorisation for derogation from the general rule was not followed, such derogation being obtained by Spain only after the Council Decision of 15 May 2006?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
Order entered September 26, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00562 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00687 - CR JAMES ERIC HOOTEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 366 - 80075 - 2012 , 366 - 80086 - 2008



### O RDER Appellant’s September 19, 2013 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED . The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to THIRTY DAYS from the date of thi s order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C_2011252EN.01005503.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/55

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2011 — Gross and Others v Court of Justice

(Case F-106/10) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 252/122

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ivo Gross (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: J. Kayser, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Claim for annulment of the decisions set out in the applicants’ salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and in the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-106/10 Gross and Others v Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-106/10 Gross and Others v Court of Justice.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.03.2011, p. 34.

1

---
### §1831g. Contracts between depository institutions and persons providing goods, products, or services

#### (a) In general

An insured depository institution may not enter into a written or oral contract with any person to provide goods, products, or services to or for the benefit of such depository institution if the performance of such contract would adversely affect the safety or soundness of the institution.

#### (b) Rulemaking

The Corporation shall prescribe such regulations and issue such orders, including definitions consistent with this section, as may be necessary to administer and carry out the purposes of, and prevent evasions of, this section.

#### (c) Enforcement

Any action taken by any appropriate Federal banking agency under section 1818 of this title to enforce compliance on the part of any insured depository institution with the requirements of this section may include a requirement that such institution properly reflect the transaction on its books and records.

#### (d) No private right of action

This section may not be construed as creating any private right of action.

#### (e) Study

#### (1) In general

The Attorney General and the Comptroller General of the United States shall jointly conduct a study on the extent to which—

(A) insured depository institutions are entering into contracts with vendors under which the vendors agree to purchase stock or assets from insured depository institutions or to invest capital in or make deposits in such institutions; and

(B) if such practices occur, the extent to which such practices are having an anticompetitive effect and should be prohibited.

#### (2) Report to Congress

Before the end of the 1-year period beginning on August 9, 1989, the Attorney General and the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Congress on the results of the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).

(Sept. 21, 1950, ch. 967, §2[30], as added Pub. L. 101–73, title II, §225, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 275; amended Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, §602(a)(59), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2291.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (e)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103–325 substituted "the vendors" for "venders".
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the C ourth as determined that this opinionshould * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60233 Su m m ar y Cal endar M AM BU J USU KOROM A, P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t
O n P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder O f th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A genc y N o. A 46- 943- 157
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * The pe t i t i o n f

o rr e he ar i ng i s D EN I ED . W e w i t hdr aw o u rp r e vi o us o pi ni o n, K orom a v. Hol d er , N o. 09-60233 , 201 0 W L 597 404 ( 5th C i r. F eb. 12, 201 0) (per c uri am ) , and s ubst i t ut e the f oll ow i ng:*** M am bu Ju su K orom a, a cit i zen of S i erra Leon e, petit i on e d fo r re v i ew of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April29, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60233 Document: 00511096349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2010N o. 09- 60233

2 th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’( “B IA”) M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 9 o r d e r , d is m is s in gh is a p p e a l o f th e I m m ig r a t io n J u d g e ’s (“ I J ” ) J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 6 d e c is io nd e n y in gK o r o m a ’s m o tio n to te r m in a te re m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s a n do r d e r in gh im re m o v e d . K orom a separatel y f i l ed a m ot i on t o re o pen w i t h t h e B IA , an d on D ece m b er 7 , 20 0 9 , the B IAg ra n tedth e m oti on . T h e B IAre m a n d edth e ca se to an I J f or f u rt h er proceedings. C ou n seldi d n oti n f orm t h e C ou rtof

t h ese d e v e lo p m e n t s in K o r o m a ’s c a s e a n d w e p r o c e e d e dto th e m e r it s o f K o r o m a ’s peti t i on f

or r evi ew of

t h e M arch 5th B IAorder. T h e B IA ’ s deci si on t o reopen K orom a’ s r em oval proceedi n gs dep rives us of ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh is p e tit io n . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ) (li m it in gth is C o u r t ’s ju r is d ic tio n t o “ fin a l o r d e r [s ] o f r e m o v a l”); seealso M orei ra v. Mu ka sey , 509 F. 3d 709, 712–14( 5t h C i r . 2007) ( dec l i n i n g t o “c ons t r ue[] [t he ali en’ s pet i t i on] as r e que s t i ng r e vi e w o f

t he B IA’ s ev e nt ualdi s m i s s alof hi s appe al” and d i s m i s s i ng t h e p e t it io n a b s e n tafi n a l o r d e ro f r e m o v a l) . T h e r e fo r e , w e D I S M I S S K o r o m a ’s p e tit io n fo rla c ko f ju r is d ic tio n . D IS M IS S E D . Case: 09-60233 Document: 00511096349 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2010
|  |
|--|

|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1285 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1285

 To amend section 40102(37) of title 49, United States Code, to modify 
 the definition of the term ``public aircraft'' to provide for certain 
           law enforcement and emergency response activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 1999

 Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Feingold) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 40102(37) of title 49, United States Code, to modify 
 the definition of the term ``public aircraft'' to provide for certain 
           law enforcement and emergency response activities.

    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 ``Law Enforcement Public Aviation 
Reform Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PUBLIC AIRCRAFT.

    The flush sentence following subparagraph (B)(ii) of section 
40102(37) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``if 
the unit of government on whose behalf the operation is conducted 
certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant and 
imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and 
that no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet 
the threat'' and inserting ``if the operation is conducted for law 
enforcement, search and rescue, or responding to an imminent threat to 
life, property, or natural resources''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued March 20, 2000

Decided June 27, 2000.

Before Judges A.A. RODRÍGUEZ and COLLESTER.

*115
      *Susan A. Feeney*argued the cause for appellant *(McCarter & English,*attorneys; *Ms. Feeney,*of counsel and on the briefs).

*Matthew J. Scola*argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. (MCI), appeals from the Tax Court’s determination that the “highest and best use” of its property at 271 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, West Orange, is “a special purpose telecommunication facility.” MCI had challenged the valuation of the property for the years 1995 and 1996. The matter was tried by Judge Roger M. Kahn.

On appeal, MCI contends that Judge Kahn erred: (1) by concluding that highest and best use of the property was that of a special purpose telecommunication facility; (2) by failing to consider MCI’s expert’s evaluation approach; and (8) by failing to consider functional obsolescence in applying the cost approach.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Kahn in his October 27,1998 written opinion.

Affirmed.
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Careers 

# In This Section

                      -  PHMSA Careers 
                      -  Occupations 
                      -  Recruitment & Outreach Events 
                      -  How to Apply 
                      -  Pay & Leave 
                      -  Benefits 
                      -  Work-Life Programs 

## Contact Us

Office of Human Resources
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**PHMSARecruiting@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-5608****Fax:**202-366-0502**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Recruitment & Outreach Events

PHMSA periodically participates in recruiting events, including military career fairs, college job fairs, and job fairs for several different professional associations and student groups to reach a diverse group of candidates.

### **Upcoming Events**

No events at this time
§ 318.12 Manufacture of uninspected, inedible products at official establishments. ( a ) Official establishments may manufacture pet food or similar uninspected, inedible products in areas where edible products also are produced, provided that the manufacture of uninspected, inedible products does not: ( 1 ) Adulterate edible products;
( 2 ) Create insanitary conditions in the official establishment whereby edible products may be adulterated; or
( 3 ) Prevent or interfere with inspection or other program tasks performed by FSIS personnel in the official establishment.
( b ) Pet food and similar uninspected, inedible products must be distinguished from edible products so as to avoid their distribution as human food. Pet food or similar uninspected, inedible products must be labeled or otherwise identified in accordance with § 325.11(d) of this subchapter.
[84 FR 40227, Aug. 14, 2019]
# Tables for Reg
# C_2007082EN.01001702.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/17

---

Action brought on 31 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-36/07)

(2007/C 82/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (1), or by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (1), or by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) of that directive;

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/68/EC expired on 20 November 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 321.

1

---
-  Inflation Reduction Act Funding Home                  -  Empowering Rural America New ERA Program 
              -  Powering Affordable Clean Energy PACE Program 
              -  Rural Energy for America 
              -  IRA Events 
              -  IRA FAQs 
              -  IRA Stakeholder Input 
              -  IRA Pocket Guides 

# IRA FAQs

                  - English
                  - Spanish

## IRA General FAQs

                                        -          Q: How is underutilized technology defined?         
A: The utilization of a given technology in REAP is driven by the applications, which in recent years have favored solar projects.
 
                                        -          Q: What do common REAP Acronyms stand for?        - EEE – Energy Efficient Equipment
- RES - Renewable Energy Systems
- EEI – Energy Efficiency Improvements
- REDA – Renewable Energy Development Assistance 
- EA – Energy Audits
 
                                        -          Q: Are there any geographic priorities for REAP?        
A: Yes, underserved areas receive priority for funding under this notice. Review Rural Developments Priority Points page for more information.
 
                                        -          Q: What are the requirements for the Technical Assistance applications due January 31?        
A: Applications interested in providing technical assistance through REAP EA/REDA should visit EA/REDA website to learn more.
 

### **Version 8.0 published September 12, 2023**

USDA Rural Development’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is providing a list of questions asked by the public regarding the New ERA program. Some of the questions will be extremely specific to a particular potential applicant but are included in this FAQ to ensure transparency and that everyone has access to the same information.

Because information changes, always consult official program regulations or contact your RUS General Field Representative for help. A list is available at this link: https://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/electric-gfr.

You can email New ERA program questions to SM.RD.RUS.IRA.Questions@usda.gov 

**NOTE:**The information in this guide does not outweigh technical and regulatory language in the Inflation Reduction Act. In questions of precedence, always refer to the Public Law or regulation.

**** Questions that are new to this version are marked with a double asterisk.**

FAQ’s for New ERA Program

FAQ’s for PACE Program
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE DATA

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 YEARS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                       ------------------------------------------
                                                           2001           2000           1999
                                                       ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>            <C>
  Net earnings (loss)                                  $  1,008,351   $   (570,733)  $ (7,497,657)
                                                       ============   ============   ============

 Per share data:


       Basic earnings (loss) per share                 $       0.23   $      (0.13)  $      (1.79)
                                                       ============   ============   ============

       Dilutive earnings (loss) per share              $       0.23   $      (0.13)  $      (1.79)
                                                       ============   ============   ============

       Net earnings (loss) per share                   $       0.23   $      (0.13)  $      (1.79)
                                                       ============   ============   ============

Shares used in the calculation of per share amounts:

  Weighted average basic common shares                    4,373,116      4,400,210      4,178,840
  Dilutive impact of stock options                               --             --             --
                                                       ------------   ------------   ------------

  Weighted average diluted common shares                  4,373,116      4,400,210      4,178,840
                                                       ============   ============   ============
</TABLE>



              There were no dilutive options during the years ended
                         March 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999.