alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                 THE GILLETTE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
 
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, 1994 AND 1993
 
      (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS, SHARES IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                1995         1994         1993
                                                               ------       ------       ------
<S>                                                            <C>          <C>          <C>
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE -- ASSUMING NO DILUTION
  Net income as reported.....................................  $823.5       $698.3       $288.3
  Less: Preferred Stock Dividends, net of tax benefit........    (4.7)        (4.7)        (4.7)
                                                               ------       ------       ------
  Net income available to Common Shareholders................  $818.8       $693.6       $283.6
                                                               ======       ======       ======
  Average common shares outstanding..........................   443.5        442.3        440.9
  Reported net income per common share.......................  $ 1.85       $ 1.57       $  .64

NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE -- ASSUMING FULL DILUTION
  Net income available to Common Shareholders (as above).....  $818.8       $693.6       $283.6
  Add: Series C ESOP Preferred Stock dividend, net of tax
     benefit.................................................     4.7          4.7          4.7
  Deduct: Additional ESOP costs, net of tax benefit..........    (1.6)        (2.2)        (2.7)
                                                               ------       ------       ------
  Adjusted net income available to common shareholders.......  $821.9       $696.1       $285.6
                                                               ======       ======       ======
  Average common shares outstanding..........................   443.5        442.3        440.9
  Add: Conversion of Series C ESOP Preferred Stock...........     6.5          6.6          6.6
       Net additional common shares upon exercise of 
          stock options......................................     5.8          4.2          3.5
                                                               ------       ------       ------
  Adjusted average common shares outstanding.................   455.8        453.1        451.0
                                                               ------       ------       ------
  Net income per common share -- assuming full dilution......  $ 1.80       $ 1.54       $  .63
</TABLE>
 
1994 and 1993 per share amounts and average number of shares outstanding have
been restated to give effect to the two-for-one stock split effected as a 100%
common stock dividend to holders of record on June 1, 1995.
 
                                       15
#### § 40.13 Review by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General shall review and respond to each application as promptly as the circumstances, including the need for independent investigation and consideration of the comments of agencies, and interested groups and persons, permit.
### §160. Congressional declaration of purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to preserve, for the inspiration and enjoyment of present and future generations, the outstanding scenery, geological conditions, and waterway system which constituted a part of the historic route of the Voyageurs who contributed significantly to the opening of the Northwestern United States.

(Pub. L. 91–661, §1, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1970.)
#### § 705.3 Application of this part.

This part applies to any program for which Federal financial assistance is authorized under a law administered by the Water Resources Council. It applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance extended under any such program after the date of this part pursuant to an application whether approved before or after such date. This part does not apply to (a) any Federal financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts, or (b) any employment practice except to the extent described in § 705.4(c).
EXHIBIT 23.3


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Under date of March 27, 1995, we confirmed by letter certain
information and opinions expressed to you.  With respect to the
financial statements of GIANT GROUP, LTD. for the year ended
December 31, 1994 to be included in the Form S-8 (File No. 33-
16848), we confirm that, to the best of our knowledge and belief,
the statements made in said letter are correct as of this date
and there have been no developments since March 27, 1995 that
would materially affect the financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 1994.  In addition, we know of no event since
March 27, 1995, although not affecting such financial statements,
has caused or is likely to cause any material change, adverse or
otherwise, in the financial position, results of operations, or
cash flows of the Company.





COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 25, 1997
### §3121. Rural residents engaged in subsistence uses

#### (a) Access to subsistence resources

The Secretary shall ensure that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to subsistence resources on the public lands.

#### (b) Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, or other means of surface transportation

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, the Secretary shall permit on the public lands appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes by local residents, subject to reasonable regulation.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title VIII, §811, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2428.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.
### Part B—Chalmette Unit
### §3214. Alaska gas pipeline

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any additional requirements in connection with the construction and operation of the transportation system designated by the President and approved by the Congress pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–586; 90 Stat. 2903) [15 U.S.C. 719 et seq.], or as imposing any limitations upon the authority of the Secretary concerning such system.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title XIII, §1327, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2489.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

The Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–586; 90 Stat. 2903), referred to in text, is Pub. L. 94–586, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2903, which is classified generally to chapter 15C (§719 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 719 of Title 15 and Tables.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 18415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06902]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8257]

Notice of Amendment to the Advisory Committee on International 
Law Charter

    The Department of State has amended the Charter of the Advisory 
Committee on International Law to add three additional membership 
positions. The Committee is comprised of all former Legal Advisers of 
the Department of State and, under the amended Charter, up to 28 
individuals appointed by the Legal Adviser. Through the Committee, the 
Department of State will continue to obtain the views and advice of a 
cross section of the country's outstanding members of the legal 
profession on significant issues of international law. The Committee 
follows the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA). Its meetings are open to the public unless a determination is 
made in accordance with the FACA and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) that a meeting or 
portion of a meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each 
meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days 
prior to the meeting, unless extraordinary circumstances require 
shorter notice. For further information, please contact Jonas Lerman, 
Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department 
of State, at 202-776-8442 or lermanjb@state.gov.

    Dated: March 19, 2013.
Jonas Lerman,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-06902 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```
#### Studstill *v.*Malsby & Company.

June 17, 1910.

Motion to set aside judgment. Before Judge Mitchell. Berrien superior court.

January 15, 1909.

*Alexander & Gary,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hendricks & Christian,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

While the evidence was conflicting, the court did not err in overruling the motion to open and vacate the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §1438. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–627, title II, §203(1), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3214

Section, Pub. L. 92–532, title III, §308, as added Pub. L. 98–498, title I, §102, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2303, authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1985 to 1988.
§ 115.404 Audit corrective action plan. ( a ) A finding of “Does Not Meet Standard” with one or more standards shall trigger a 180-day corrective action period.
( b ) The auditor and the agency shall jointly develop a corrective action plan to achieve compliance.
( c ) The auditor shall take necessary and appropriate steps to verify implementation of the corrective action plan, such as reviewing updated policies and procedures or re-inspecting portions of a facility.
( d ) After the 180-day corrective action period ends, the auditor shall issue a final determination as to whether the facility has achieved compliance with those standards requiring corrective action.
( e ) If the agency does not achieve compliance with each standard, it may (at its discretion and cost) request a subsequent audit once it believes that is has achieved compliance.
### §720l. Sense of Congress concerning natural gas demand

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) North American demand for natural gas will increase dramatically over the course of the next several decades;

(2) both the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and the Mackenzie Delta Natural Gas project in Canada will be necessary to help meet the increased demand for natural gas in North America;

(3) Federal and State officials should work together with officials in Canada to ensure both projects can move forward in a mutually beneficial fashion;

(4) Federal and State officials should acknowledge that the smaller scope, fewer permitting requirements, and lower cost of the Mackenzie Delta project means it will most likely be completed before the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline;

(5) natural gas production in the 48 contiguous States and Canada will not be able to meet all domestic demand in the coming decades; and

(6) as a result, natural gas delivered from Alaskan North Slope will not displace or reduce the commercial viability of Canadian natural gas produced from the Mackenzie Delta or production from the 48 contiguous States.

(Pub. L. 108–324, div. C, §114, Oct. 13, 2004, 118 Stat. 1264.)
BEFORE SHE’S TOO COOL FOR MOM 

TO DROP HER OFF AT SCHOOL...

Take advantage of this time to talk about prescription 

medicine safety.

Start talking to your children early to ensure they understand what opioids are 

and the risks of misusing prescription medicine. Though it may not seem like it, 

children really hear your concerns. For tips on how—and when—to begin the 

conversation, visit:

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

SMA-18-5092
Exhibit 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Eric Claus certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3. Intentionally omitted;

4. Intentionally omitted;

5. Intentionally omitted.



     /s/ Eric Claus                                  Date:  April 10, 2008
--------------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
### §202a. Summer homes and cottages

After January 26, 1931, no permit, license, lease, or other authorization for the use of land within the Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, for the erection and maintenance of summer homes or cottages shall be granted or made: Provided, however, That the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, renew any permit, license, lease, or other authorization for such purpose granted or made prior to January 26, 1931.

(Jan. 26, 1931, ch. 47, §3, 46 Stat. 1043.)
#### Charles Gottschalk *v.*Love Hughes.

Hew *trial—newly discovered evidence.*Where there is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, and a new trial is asked for on the ground of newiv discovered evidence, which is only cumulative, and this court can not see, upon the whole record, that justice has not been done, the judgment below will not be disturbed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Johh G. Bogebs, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Columbus Gottschalk, and Mr. M. D. Browu, for the appellant.

Messrs. Holdeít & Moore, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Bbeese

delivered the opinion of the Court:.

This was assumpsit, in the Cook circuit court, by Love Hughes, plaintiff, against Charles Gottschalk and Simon Koch, defendants, to recover for plaintiff’s services as a malster of barley for the defendants. The action was dismissed as to Koch, and the defendant Gottschalk pleaded the general issue with notice of set-off, on which the parties went to trial by a jury, who found for the plaintiff, assessing the damages at two hundred and thirty-two dollars and forty cents.

The defendant entered his motion for a new trial, for the reason the verdict was' against the law and the evidence, and for newly discovered evidence since the trial, setting out the same. The motion was denied, and judgment entered on the verdict, to reverse which defendant appeals.

The set-off claimed by appellant was a claim for damages in making the malt, he alleging there was a contract that the plaintiff should make good malt out of the barley, but, instead thereof, he made bad malt, and in an unskillful manner, and overheated the same, whereby the malt was scorched and burned, and rendered worthless.

*485The proof is, appellee agreed to malt the barley for twenty cents per bushel, and to make as good malt as could be made from the barley appellant furnished.

There was great contrariety of testimony on the last point. The contract was made in May, and it was in evidence malt could not be as well made at that season as in colder weather. Appellant watched the operations as they were going on, and, on one occasion, thought appellee was browning it too much, and appellee said he would make it of a lighter color, if desired. There is evidence the malt was as good, made at that season of the year, as could be made of Mo. 3 barley, the quality furnished.

There is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, on all the points made. There is no such preponderance, either way, as requires this court to interfere.

The newly discovered evidence amounts to nothing more than cumulation. It is by no means decisive. We can not see justice has not been done by the verdict, and see no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2012287EN.01000802.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Vodafone España SA v Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), and France Telecom España SA v Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11)

(Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11) (1)

1

(Directive 2002/20/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Authorisation - Article 13 - Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities)

2012/C 287/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vodafone España SA (C-55/11 and C-57/11), France Telecom España SA (C-58/11)

Applicants:

Defendants: Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Fees for rights of use and the right to install equipment — Municipal public property

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a fee for the right to install facilities on, over or under public or private property on operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of those facilities, use them to provide mobile telephony services; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a fee for the right to install facilities on, over or under public or private property on operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of those facilities, use them to provide mobile telephony services;

| 2. | Article 13 of Directive 2002/20 has direct effect and therefore it grants individuals the right to rely upon it before the national courts to dispute the application of a decision by the public authority that is incompatible with that article. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13 of Directive 2002/20 has direct effect and therefore it grants individuals the right to rely upon it before the national courts to dispute the application of a decision by the public authority that is incompatible with that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
# C_2010161EN.01004601.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/46

---

Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-163/10)

(2010/C 161/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Entegris, Inc. (Billerica, United States) (represented by: T. Ludbrook, Barrister and M. Rosser, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimize Technologies, Inc. (Oregon City, United States)

Form of order sought

| — | Uphold the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the appeal;

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2;

| — | Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES’, for goods in class 9.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “OPTIMIZER”, for goods in classes 1, 9 and 11.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the said legal provision in accordance with the relevant case law, thereby wrongly finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

---
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 14 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2019 

Referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday 

of King Kamehameha I. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF KING KAMEHA5 MEHA I. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on June 

8 9, 2019, for an event to celebrate the birthday of King 

9 Kamehameha I. 

10 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

11 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

SCON 14 RFH 

1 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

2 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the Senate April 11, 2019. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Felipe Rodriguez, Appellant, v Jeanette J. Herbert et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 37]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 24, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even though the time plaintiff spent under treatment by different physicians after his accident exceeds 90 days, he failed to establish, by competent medical evidence, that during this period he was prevented from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting his customary daily activities during at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *see Thompson v Abbasi,*15 AD3d 95, 100-101 [2005]). Plaintiffs deposition testimony excerpts are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.