alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
PLANET POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                                   EXHIBIT 11.1
STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three months ended September 30,      Nine months ended September 30,
                                                        -------------------------------       -------------------------------
                                                            1998               1997               1998               1997
                                                        ------------       ------------       ------------       ------------
<S>                                                     <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>      
Shares outstanding at beginning of period                  5,271,269          5,271,269          5,271,269          5,271,269
    7,337 shares issued on December 15, 1997                   7,337               --                7,337               --
    21,538 shares accrued December 31, 1997                   21,538               --               21,538               --
                                                        ------------       ------------       ------------       ------------
Weighted average number of shares                          5,300,144          5,271,269          5,300,144          5,271,269
                                                                           ============                          ============
    10,169 shares issued on March 15, 1998                    10,169                                 7,413
    8,695 shares issued on June 15, 1998                       8,695                                 3,408
    13,483 shares issued on September 15, 1998                 2,198                                   740
                                                        ------------                          ------------
Weighted average number of shares                          5,321,206                             5,311,705
                                                        ============                          ============
</TABLE>
§ 185.133 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the authority head, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, double damages and a significant civil penalty ordinarily should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the authority head in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.,* the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint; ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations;
( 8 ) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly;
( 16 ) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct; and
( 17 ) The potential impact of the misconduct on the rights of others.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the authority head from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
<PAGE>

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Clive de Larrabeiti, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this interim quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mayfair
Mining & Minerals, Inc., for the period ended December 31, 2005;

2. Based on my knowledge, this interim quarterly 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
quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this interim quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this interim
quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this interim
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this interim quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


By /s/ Clive de Larrabeiti
   -----------------------

Date: February 21, 2006

Clive de Larrabeiti
President and
Director


                                       15
This information is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TDD# 1-866-539-7622 or 1-617-574-6868

MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep

Printed on Recycled Paper

December 30, 2011

David Conroy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 1

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100

Boston, MA 02109-3912

Dear Mr. Conroy:

I am pleased to submit a Final Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

fulfill the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Regional Haze 

Program Requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308.

The Regional Haze SIP addresses Massachusetts’ contribution to visibility impairment at Class I

areas and was developed in coordination with the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE-VU) regional planning organization.

As you know, because Massachusetts was not included in EPA’s final Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) must revise its 

strategy for addressing Electric Generating Units (EGUs). MassDEP plans to re-propose 

portions of the SIP in February 2012 that will include an Alternative to Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) covering EGUs and a revised Targeted EGU Strategy. At that time, 

MassDEP also plans to propose associated facility permit modifications and low sulfur oil 

regulations as agreed to by the MANE-VU states. MassDEP intends to finalize and submit to 

EPA the revised SIP portions, permits, and low sulfur regulations in June 2012. 

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this submittal, please contact 

Glenn Keith at 617-292-5874. 
Sincerely,

Nancy L. Seidman

Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Climate Strategies

cc: Anne McWilliams, EPA Region I

Ann Arnold, EPA Region I

Tim Allen, USFWS

Holly Salazer, NPS

Ralph Perron, USFS

Enclosures: 

Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Appendices (on compact disc)
Filed 5/11/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 79

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Jaimie Lee Mudge, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20100368 - 20100371

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lawrence E. Jahnke, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Faye A. Jasmer (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee.

Kent M. Morrow (on brief), P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, ND 58502-2155, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Mudge

Nos. 20100368 - 20100371

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Jaimie Mudge appealed from a criminal judgment and order denying his request for modification of his sentence.  Mudge argues the district court erred in construing his letters as applications for post-conviction relief and in denying his requested relief.  We conclude the judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in construing Mudge’s letters as applications for post-conviction relief.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 16 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.16

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
 To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of the United 
                      States for fiscal year 2003.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND 
              JUDGES.

    Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, Justices and judges of 
the United States are authorized during fiscal year 2003 to receive a 
salary adjustment in accordance with section 461 of title 28, United 
States Code.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### §569e. Use of private sector resources in surveying and mapping

To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall make use of private sector resources in carrying out surveying and mapping activities in the Civil Works Program of the Corps of Engineers.

(Pub. L. 102–580, title II, §212, Oct. 31, 1992, 106 Stat. 4831.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 3 of Pub. L. 102–580, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 64622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending October 
22, 2004

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. 
Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the 
application.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19457.
    Date Filed: October 20, 2004.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: CTC COMP 0505 dated 22 October 2004, Mail Vote 416, 
Special Cargo Amending Resolution, Add-On Resolution r1-r2, Minutes: 
CTC COMP 0504 dated 15 October 2004, Intended effective date: 1 
February 2005.

    Docket Number: OST-2004-19459.
    Date Filed: October 20, 2004.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC2 EUR0 586 dated 22 October 2004, PTC2 Within Europe 
Expedited Resolutions r1-r12, Intended effective date: 1 December 2004.

    Docket Number: OST-2004-19475.
    Date Filed: October 22, 2004.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 417, PTC COMP 1197 dated 22 October 2004, 
Resolution 010a--Special Passenger Amending, Resolution r1-r2, Intended 
effective date: 1 November 2004.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Program Manager, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-24683 Filed 11-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
§ 532.305 Dominant industry. ( a ) ( 1 ) A specialized industry is a “dominant industry” if the number of wage employees in the wage area who are subject to the wage schedule for which the survey is made and employed in occupations which comprise the principal types of appropriated or nonappropriated fund positions in the specialized industry comprise: ( i ) For appropriated fund activities, ( A ) At least 25 percent of the total wage employment or
( B ) 1,000 or more employees in a wage area having more than 4,000 wage employees; and
( ii ) For nonappropriated fund activities ( A ) At least 25 percent of the total wage employment or
( B ) 100 or more wage employees in a wage area having 400 or more wage employees.
( 2 ) If two or more specialized industries in a wage area qualify as dominant industries, the two specialized industries having the largest number of wage employees shall be the dominant industries for purposes of applying the requirements of this subpart.
### §1321a. Prevention of small oil spills

#### (a) Prevention and education program

The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating and other appropriate agencies, shall establish an oil spill prevention and education program for small vessels. The program shall provide for assessment, outreach, and training and voluntary compliance activities to prevent and improve the effective response to oil spills from vessels and facilities not required to prepare a vessel response plan under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including recreational vessels, commercial fishing vessels, marinas, and aquaculture facilities. The Under Secretary may provide grants to sea grant colleges and institutes designated under section 1126 of this title and to State agencies, tribal governments, and other appropriate entities to carry out—

(1) regional assessments to quantify the source, incidence and volume of small oil spills, focusing initially on regions in the country where, in the past 10 years, the incidence of such spills is estimated to be the highest;

(2) voluntary, incentive-based clean marina programs that encourage marina operators, recreational boaters, and small commercial vessel operators to engage in environmentally sound operating and maintenance procedures and best management practices to prevent or reduce pollution from oil spills and other sources;

(3) cooperative oil spill prevention education programs that promote public understanding of the impacts of spilled oil and provide useful information and techniques to minimize pollution, including methods to remove oil and reduce oil contamination of bilge water, prevent accidental spills during maintenance and refueling and properly cleanup and dispose of oil and hazardous substances; and

(4) support for programs, including outreach and education to address derelict vessels and the threat of such vessels sinking and discharging oil and other hazardous substances, including outreach and education to involve efforts to the owners of such vessels.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

(Pub. L. 111–281, title VII, §705, Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2982.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is act June 30, 1948, ch. 758, as amended generally by Pub. L. 92–500, §2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1251 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, and not as part of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which comprises this chapter.
#### LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, *et al. v.*Governor Mike HUCKABEE, *et al.*

01-836

157 S.W.3d 192

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 2, 2004

*Lewellen & Associates,*by: *Roy C. Lewellen,*for appellant class.

*Wilson Law Firm, P.A.,*by: *E. Dion Wilson,*for appellant school district.

*Mike Beebe,*Att’y Gen., by: *Timothy Gauger,*Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellees.

*Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A.,*by *David R. Matthews,*for intervenors Rogers and Bentonville Public School Districts.

*Friday, Eldredge & Clark,*by: *Christopher Heller,*for intervenor Little Rock School District.

*Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon,*by: *Clayton R. Blackstock*and *Mark Burnette,*for amicus curiae Arkansas Education Association.

*Kaplan, Brewer, Maxey & Haralson, P.A.,*by: *Regina Haralson,*for amicus curiae Arkansas Public Policy Panel.

Per Curiam.

Today, April 2, 2004, the Masters filed their report in this matter with the Supreme Court Clerk as directed by our *per curiam*order of February 3, 2004. *See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee,*356 Ark. 1, 144 S.W.3d 741 (2004) *(per curiam).*Pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2) (2003), within twenty days after being served with notice of the filing of the report, any party *588may serve written objections to the report upon the other parties. The rule further provides that application to the court for action upon the report and objections shall be by motion and upon notice as prescribed in Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(c). Accordingly, should the parties wish to do so, they may file written objections in accordance with our Rules of Civil Procedure within the twenty-day time frame. This court will then take the matter under advisement, either on motion by the parties or on our own motion.

Imber, J., not participating.

Special Justice Carol Dalby joins.
§ 351.801 Notice period. ( a ) ( 1 ) Each competing employee selected for release from a competitive level under this part is entitled to a specific written notice at least 60 full days before the effective date of release.
( 2 ) At the same time an agency issues a notice to an employee, it must give a written notice to the exclusive representative(s), as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(16), of each affected employee at the time of the notice. When a significant number of employees will be separated, an agency must also satisfy the notice requirements of §§ 351.803 (b) and (c).
( b ) When a reduction in force is caused by circumstances not reasonably foreseeable, the Director of OPM, at the request of an agency head or designee, may approve a notice period of less than 60 days. The shortened notice period must cover at least 30 full days before the effective date of release. An agency request to OPM shall specify: ( 1 ) The reduction in force to which the request pertains;
( 2 ) The number of days by which the agency requests that the period be shortened;
( 3 ) The reasons for the request; and
( 4 ) Any other additional information that OPM may specify.
( c ) The notice period begins the day after the employee receives the notice.
( d ) When an agency retains an employee under § 351.607 or § 351.608, the notice to the employee shall cite the date on which the retention period ends as the effective date of the employee's release from the competitive level.
[60 FR 2678, Jan. 11, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 44254, Aug. 25, 1995; 63 FR 32594, June 15, 1998; 65 FR 25623, May 3, 2000]