alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**Statement explaining how earnings per share information was calculated in this annual report**

The calculation of theearnings per share attributable to the equity holders of the Company for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 is based on the profit attributable to the equity holders of the Company for the year of RMB2,372,985,000,RMB2,881,461,000 and RMB3,154,317,000 and on the weighted average number of 4,918,400,000 shares, 4,918,400,000 shares and 4,743,606,557 shares in issue, respectively, during the years. 

The weighted average number of ordinary shares for the purpose of calculating basic earnings per share for all the period presented has been adjusted for the bonus issue of the Company on July 27, 2005.

The earnings per ADS have been calculated based on the profit for the relevant periods and on one ADS, being equivalent to 50 shares, which has beenadjusted for the bonus issue of the Company on July 27, 2005. 

No diluted earning per share has been presented as there are no dilutive potentialshares in issue during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

 

No. 06-067 May 17, 2006

NEW REACTOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CENTER

TO BE ESTABLISHED IN NRC’S ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to establish a dedicated organization in its Region II

office in Atlanta to be the center of all inspection activity for expected new nuclear power plants. 

The Construction Inspection Program will be responsible for day-to-day onsite inspections and

specialized inspection resources supporting the agency’s oversight of any new nuclear power plant

construction for the entire country. The Commission has given the Atlanta office’s Regional

Administrator, William Travers, the responsibility of managing the program’s inception, while

maintaining the office’s focus on ensuring safe operation of nuclear power plants in the region.

“This approach will make sure inspection methods are consistent across the country, and allow

us to quickly incorporate lessons learned into the entire program,” said NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz.

“Thorough inspections will help ensure any new nuclear power plants are built to meet our

requirements for protecting the public’s health and safety.”

The Commission has directed the NRC’s Executive Director for Operations, Luis Reyes, to

review the program at least annually to ensure that the safety oversight of operating facilities is not

adversely affected and to consider alternatives, as appropriate, to address developments in the actual

construction of new facilities. The NRC is expecting several applications for new nuclear power plants

in late 2007 and early 2008, with construction activities possible after significant agency review. The

agency is currently evaluating and planning the resources and staffing needed to implement the

inspection program.

###
### §535h. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–120, title III, §306(b)(6)(C), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 56

Section, Pub. L. 92–434, §11, Sept. 26, 1972, 86 Stat. 733, related to report of Secretary of Transportation's approvals granted during fiscal year pursuant to section 535c of this title.
§ 430.206 Planning performance. ( a ) *Appraisal period.* ( 1 ) An appraisal program shall designate an official appraisal period for which a performance plan shall be prepared, during which performance shall be monitored, and for which a rating of record shall be prepared.
( 2 ) Each program shall specify a single length of time as its appraisal period. The appraisal period generally shall be 12 months so that employees are provided a rating of record on an annual basis. A program's appraisal period may be longer when work assignments and responsibilities so warrant or performance management objectives can be achieved more effectively.
( b ) *Performance plan.* ( 1 ) Agencies shall encourage employee participation in establishing performance plans.
( 2 ) Performance plans shall be provided to employees at the beginning of each appraisal period (normally within 30 days).
( 3 ) An appraisal program shall require that each employee be covered by an appropriate written, or otherwise recorded, performance plan based on work assignments and responsibilities.
( 4 ) Each performance plan shall include all elements which are used in deriving and assigning a summary level, including at least one critical element and any non-critical element(s).
( 5 ) Each performance plan may include one or more additional performance elements, which— ( i ) Are not used in deriving and assigning a summary level, and
( ii ) Are used to support performance management processes as described at § 430.102(b).
( 6 ) A performance plan established under an appraisal program that uses only two summary levels (pattern A as specified in § 430.208(d)(1)) shall not include non-critical elements.
( 7 ) An appraisal program shall establish how many and which performance levels may be used to appraise critical and non-critical elements.
( 8 ) Elements and standards shall be established as follows— ( i ) For a critical element— ( A ) At least two levels for appraisal shall be used with one level being “Fully Successful” or its equivalent and another level being “Unacceptable,” and
( B ) A performance standard shall be established at the “Fully Successful” level and may be established at other levels.
( ii ) For non-critical elements, when established,— ( A ) At least two levels for appraisal shall be used, and
( B ) A performance standard(s) shall be established at whatever level(s) is appropriate.
( iii ) The absence of an established performance standard at a level specified in the program shall not preclude a determination that performance is at that level.
[60 FR 43943, Aug. 23, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 62503, Nov. 24, 1997]
FILED

MAY 2 0 2020 ORIONAi

IN THE SUPREME GtitareArtarSTATE OF MONTANA state of Montana

OP 20-0272

RINDO R. SIRONI, M.D. and ST. JAMES

HEALTHCARE,

Petitioners,

v.

MONTANA SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, SILVER BOW COUNTY,

HONORABLE KURT KRUEGER, Presiding

Respondent.

ORDER

Petitioners Rindo R. Sironi, M.D., and St. James Healthcare seek a writ of

supervisory control directing the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County,

to reverse its April 8, 2020 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of

Process and Expiration of Statute of Limitations its Cause No. DV-16-262. Petitioners'

motion to dismiss had asserted that the claims of the plaintiff in the underlying litigation

were time-barred because she had not served her Complaint within the timeline required

for accomplishing service under § 25-3-106, MCA, and because the statute of limitations

for the filing of her Complaint had run in the interim.

Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged Order, this Court deems it

appropriate to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M. R. App. P.

14(7),

IT IS ORDERED that the Eleventh Judicial District Court and the State of Montana,

or both, are granted thirty days from the date of this Order, to prepare, file, and serve a

response(s) to the petition for writ of supervisory control.

05/20/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0272
The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for

Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow

County, Cause No. DV-16-262, and the Honorable Kurt Krueger, presiding Judge.

Dated this 20 day of May, 2020.

2
§ 300.603 Coverage. ( a ) *Coverage.* This subpart applies to advancement to a General Schedule position in the competitive service by any individual who within the previous 52 weeks held a General Schedule position under nontemporary appointment in the competitive or excepted service in the executive branch, unless excluded by paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Exclusions.* The following actions may be taken without regard to this subpart but must be consistent with all other applicable requirements, such as qualification standards: ( 1 ) Appointment based on selection from a competitive examination register of eligibles or under a direct hire authority.
( 2 ) Noncompetitive appointment based on a special authority in law or Executive order (but not including transfer and reinstatement) made in accordance with all requirements applicable to new appointments under that authority.
( 3 ) Advancement in accordance with part 335 of this chapter up to any General Schedule grade the employee previously held under nontemporary appointment in the competitive or excepted service.
( 4 ) Advancement of an employee from a non-General Schedule position to a General Schedule position unless the employee held a General Schedule position under nontemporary appointment in the executive branch within the previous 52 weeks.
( 5 ) Advancement of an individual whose General Schedule service during the previous 52 weeks has been totally under temporary appointment.
( 6 ) Advancement of an employee under a training agreement established in accordance with OPM's operating manuals. However, an employee may not receive more than two promotions in any 52-week period solely on the basis of one or more training agreements. Also, only OPM may approve a training agreement that provides for consecutive promotions at rates that exceed those permitted by § 300.604 of this part.
( 7 ) Advancement to avoid hardship to an agency or inequity to an employee in an individual meritorious case but only with the prior approval of the agency head or his or her designee. However, an employee may not be promoted more than three grades during any 52-week period on the basis of this paragraph.
( 8 ) Advancement when OPM authorizes it to avoid hardship to an agency or inequity to an employee in individual meritorious situations not defined, but consistent with the definitions, in § 300.602 of this part.
[56 FR 23002, May 20, 1991, as amended at 66 FR 66710, Dec. 27, 2001]
#### George P. Jones, Appellant, *v.*S. T. Palay Textile Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

First Department,

January 29, 1952.

*338
      *David A. Barnhard*of counsel *(Edward D. Alexander,*attorney), for appellant.

*John E. Asch*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Over the objection of counsel for the plaintiff, the court stenographer was directed by the Trial Judge to go into the jury room and read a portion of the court’s charge. This was error entitling plaintiff to a new trial.

The case is unlike *Gundersen*v. *All America Commerce Corp.*(275 App. Div. 572), where the only reply which was necessary to a communication from the jury was a simple “ Yes ”. There we held no prejudicial reversible error was committed, although we took pains to point out that the proper practice, which was wise and salutary, was to have all further instructions given by the Justice presiding in open court with counsel for both sides present, unless counsel on both sides consent to written instructions or to the reading of the record or parts thereof by the stenographer in the jury room.

*339What was there said, in accordance with the general rule, applies to this case. A whole portion of the Judge’s charge relating to respondent’s responsibility was requested by the jury and directed to be read to them by the stenographer. Without further definition by the trial court, the stenographer was directed to read the part “ dealing with that subject ”. Although the record on appeal notes that the stenographer read the parts of the charge commencing with one sentence and ending with another sentence, the charge was not transcribed at the time so it could not be said, except by the stenographer’s later report, just what was read. There is no suggestion that the stenographer did not perform as directed, but the case illustrates the importance of having all instructions to the jury given in open court, where each party knows exactly what is being communicated to the jury and has an opportunity to note any objections, exceptions or further request, unless consent is given.

The order appealed from should be reversed, plaintiff’s motion granted and a new trial ordered as to both defendants, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant to abide the event.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn and Van Voobhis, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, the motion granted and a new trial ordered as to both defendants, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant to abide the event. Settle order on notice.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 20, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 14, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 79 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2019-49, CP2019-53.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-27495 Filed 12-19-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-05-012 April 8, 2005

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

FOR PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear

Management Company on Tuesday, April 12, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance

for the year 2004 at the Prairies Island Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Welch, Minn.

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 

5:30 p.m. at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Training Center, 1660 Wakonade Drive West,

Welch, Minn.

Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the

public on the safety performance of the Prairie Island plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring

safe plant operation.

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Prairie Island plant and the nation’s

other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance

with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain

the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding

our regulation of these facilities.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/prai_2004q4.pdf

The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Prairie Island plant operated safely during the period. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant

performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,”

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Prairie Island during 2004 were

determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline

level of inspections during the upcoming year.
-2-

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and

by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, IL, and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are

reactor vessel head replacement, safety system design and performance capability, problem

identification and resolution, and fire protection.

Current performance information for Prairie Island is available on the NRC’s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PRAI1/prai1_chart.html and

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PRAI2/prai2_chart.html

###
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-06-012 March 28, 2006

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS 2005 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

FOR LASALLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Exelon Generation

Co. on Thursday, April 6, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the

LaSalle Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Seneca, Ill.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. at the Brookfield

Township Hall, 2099 E. 27th Road, in Seneca. The NRC will respond to questions or comments before

the close of the meeting

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the LaSalle plant and the nation’s other

commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance

with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain

the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding

our regulation of these facilities.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/lasa_2005q4.pdf . 

The NRC’s assessment concluded that the LaSalle plant operated safely during the period. The

NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant

performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,”

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for LaSalle during 2005 were

determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline

level of inspections during the upcoming year.

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and

by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are

emergency preparedness, monitoring of gaseous and liquid effluents, and radioactive material

processing and transportation.
Current performance information for LaSalle is available on the NRC’s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LASA1/lasa1_chart.html

and http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LASA2/lasa2_chart.html . 

###
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1740

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1502 East Kiest Boulevard in Dallas, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Dr. Caesar A.W. Clark, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1740 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1502 East Kiest Boulevard in Dallas, Texas, shall 

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Caesar A.W. Clark, 

5 Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Dr. Caesar A.W. Clark, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 6, 2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
§ 295.401 Penalties. ( a ) An employee who discloses official records or information or gives testimony relating to official information, except as expressly authorized by OPM or as ordered by a Federal court after OPM has had the opportunity to be heard, may face the penalties provided in 18 U.S.C. 641 and other applicable laws. Additionally, former OPM employees are subject to the restrictions and penalties of 18 U.S.C. 207 and 216.
( b ) A current OPM employee who testifies or produces official records and information in violation of this part may be subject to disciplinary action.
### §477. Utilization of services of Library of Congress

#### (a) Authority of Librarian to make available services and assistance of Congressional Research Service

To carry out the objectives of this chapter, the Librarian of Congress is authorized to make available to the Office such services and assistance of the Congressional Research Service as may be appropriate and feasible.

#### (b) Scope of services and assistance

Such services and assistance made available to the Office shall include, but not be limited to, all of the services and assistance which the Congressional Research Service is otherwise authorized to provide to the Congress.

#### (c) Services or responsibilities performed by Congressional Research Service for Congress not altered or modified; authority of Librarian to establish within Congressional Research Service additional divisions, etc.

Nothing in this section shall alter or modify any services or responsibilities, other than those performed for the Office, which the Congressional Research Service under law performs for or on behalf of the Congress. The Librarian is, however, authorized to establish within the Congressional Research Service such additional divisions, groups, or other organizational entities as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this chapter.

#### (d) Reimbursement for services and assistance

Services and assistance made available to the Office by the Congressional Research Service in accordance with this section may be provided with or without reimbursement from funds of the Office, as agreed upon by the Board and the Librarian of Congress.

(Pub. L. 92–484, §8, Oct. 13, 1972, 86 Stat. 801.)