alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
(000s, except per share data)

|                                                              |  | For the Quarter Ended
June 30, 2002 |        | For the Year Ended
June 30, 2002 |  
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------- | -
|Net income (loss)                                             |  | $                                   | (2,075 | )                                | $
|Weighted average number of outstanding shares of common stock |  |                                     | 8,517  |                                  |  
|Basic earnings (loss) per share                               |  | $                                   | (0.24  | )                                | $
|Net income (loss)                                             |  | $                                   | (2,075 | )                                | $
|Weighted average number of outstanding shares of common stock |  |                                     | 8,517  |                                  |  
|Dilutive stock options                                        |  |                                     | 30     |                                  |  
|Earnings (loss) per share assuming dilution                   |  | $                                   | (0.24  | )                                | $

---

QuickLinks
[File No. 6560.]

#### OLE B. STRAY, Respondent, v. BERTA E. BAKER, State Auditor; John Gray, State Treasurer; James D. Gronna, Secretary of State; Adam Lefor, State Bank Examiner; and William Langer, Governor, Comprising the Auditing Board in and for the State of North Dakota, Defendants. BERTA E. BAKER, State Auditor, and John Gray, State Treasurer, Appellants.

(281 N. W. 86.)

*506
      *Alvin G. Strutz,*Attorney General, *T. A. Thompson,*Assistant Attorney General, of Bismarck, for appellants.

*J. K. Mufray*and *Bernard J. Smith,*of Bismarck, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff Ole B. Stray brought this proceeding to compel by mandamus -the allowance and payment of his salary as Commissioner of University and School Lands for the month of July, 1938, payment of which was refused on the ground that plaintiff’s appointment to the office of commissioner had been avoided by the adoption on June 28, 1938, of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the appointment of a member of the legislative assembly to civil office or other employment during the term for which he was elected. The district court ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the defendants perfected the instant appeal.

The material facts are those considered and held determinative in the case of State ex rel. Strutz v. Stray, just decided. The holding in that case is decisive of the issues in ante, 498, 281 N. W. 83, the instant case and no opinion will be written herein.

The judgment of the District Court must be and it is affirmed.

Christianson, Oh. J., and Nuessle, Burr, Morris and Sathre, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
3.6




[SEAL]
            ROSS
      MILLER
              Secretary
      of State
              204
      North Carson Street, Suite 1
              Carson
      City, Nevada 89701-4520
              (775)
      684-5708
              Website:  www.nvsos.gov
            Filed
      in the office of
              /s/
      Ross Miller
              Ross
      Miller
              Secretary
      of State
              State
      of Nevada
            Document
      Number
              20100080056-72
              Filing
      Date and Time
              02/08/2010  2:37
      PM
              Entity
      #
              C34406-2004




Certificate
of Amendment


(PURSUANT
TO NRS 78.385 and 78.390)





Certificate of Amendment to
Articles of Incorporation


For Nevada Profit
Corporations


(Pursuant
to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 – After Issuance of Stock)





1.           Name
of corporation:  Shawnee Energy, Inc.





2.           The
articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):





Article No. 1. is amended to be as follows:  “1.  Name of
corporation:  Internet Infinity, Inc.”





3.           The
vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them
to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion
of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or
series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation
have voted in favor of the amendment is:  24,429,196.





4.           Effective
date of filing:  (optional)





5.           Officer
Signature:




/s/ George MorrisGeorge
      Morris, CEO
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4296 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act to repeal a duplicative 

program relating to inspection and grading of catfish. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mrs. HARTZLER (for herself, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. FRANK of 

Massachusetts, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. CRAVAACK) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act to repeal 

a duplicative program relating to inspection and grading 

of catfish. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DUPLICATIVE CATFISH INSPEC4 TION PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of the enact6 ment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

7 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), section 11016 of such Act (Public 

8 Law 110–246; 122 Stat. 2130) and the amendments made 

9 by such section are repealed. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4296 IH

1 (b) APPLICATION.—The Agricultural Marketing Act 

2 of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) and the Federal Meat 

3 Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) shall be applied 

4 and administered as if section 11016 (Public Law 110– 

5 246; 122 Stat. 2130) of the Food, Conservation, and En6 ergy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.) and the amend7 ments made by such section had not been enacted. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 38.551 Audit trail required.

A designated contract market must capture and retain all audit trail data necessary to detect, investigate, and prevent customer and market abuses. Such data must be sufficient to reconstruct all transactions within a reasonable period of time and to provide evidence of any violations of the rules of the designated contract market. An acceptable audit trail must also permit the designated contract market to track a customer order from the time of receipt through fill, allocation, or other disposition, and must include both order and trade data.
227 A.2d 116.

#### Burton W. Moon *vs.*Alfred T. Cole.

MARCH 8, 1967.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This criminal complaint charges the defendant with operating and maintaining an automobile junkyard in the town of North Kingstown in violation of *727the provisions of G. L. 1956, §5-21-5, as amended. The complaint also .alleges that on the date of the passage of P. L. 1965, ohap. 138, the defendant did not have a valid license issued pursuant to G. L. 1956, §§5-21-1, as amended, and 31-5-28, as amended.

The complaint has been certified to. this court by the district court of the second judicial district in accordance with tire provisions of G. L. 1956, §9-24-27, as amended. The certification calls for the determination of certain questions relating to. the constitutionality of P. L. 1965, chap. 138, which were brought in question upon the record by defendant’s special .pleas to this complaint.

Chapter 138, approved May 19, 1965, is an act in amendment of G. L. 1956, chap. 21 of title 5, entitled “Secondhand Dealers.” It was enacted toregulate automobile junkyards in the various cities and towns by authorizing local legislative bodies to enact ordinances for the issuance and revocation of licenses to persons conducting such businesses. The questions certified do not specify which section or sections of chap. 138 are claimed to be unconstitutional. In the circumstances1 the questions are too indefinite. *Carroll*v. *Chrupcala,*53 R. I. 11.

Moreover, although the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to certain facts, it now appears that the questions certified were brought upon the record by the defendant’s mistaken belief that the town had no junkyard ordinance. He stated before us in open court that he had no knowledge of 'the existence of such ordinance until the hearing in this court at which the complainant’s counsel represented to the court that such an ordinance was in force. It may very well be that the existence of the local junkyard1 ordinance would be decisive in determining the ultimate constitutional problem.

For the reasons stated, we dn not determine the questions certified to us. The papers in the case with our decision *728certified thereon are ordered sent back to the district court of the sound judicial district for further proceedings.

*S. Everett Wilkins,*for complainant.

*John P. Bourcier,*for respondent.
Order entered April 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01111-CR

DAMIAN ELDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-53551-K

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
§ 120.7 Relations to other provisions of law. ( a ) The provisions in this subchapter are in addition to, and are not in lieu of, any other provisions of law or regulations. The sale of firearms in the United States, for example, remains subject to the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and regulations administered by the Department of Justice. The performance of defense services on behalf of foreign governments by retired military personnel continues to require consent pursuant to part 3a of this title. Persons who intend to export defense articles or furnish defense services should not assume that satisfying the requirements of this subchapter relieves one of other requirements of law.
( b ) All determinations, authorizations, licenses, approvals of contracts and agreements, and other action issued, authorized, undertaken, or entered into by the Department of State pursuant to section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, or under the previous provisions of this subchapter, continue in full force and effect until or unless modified, revoked, or superseded by the Department of State.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.
                   Computation of Earnings per Common Share
                         (000s, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                 FOR THE THREE MONTHS  FOR THE SIX MONTHS
                                    ENDED JUNE 30,       ENDED JUNE 30,
                                   1997       1996       1997      1996
                               ------------------------------------------
 
<S>                              <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>
Net income (a)                      $  300     $  195    $4,582    $2,783
 
Weighted average common              8,484      7,908     8,484     7,908
   shares outstanding (a)
 
Earnings per common share (a)       $ 0.04     $ 0.02    $ 0.54    $ 0.35
 
(a) Pro forma for 1996
 
</TABLE>
§ 1008.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a(n) Inter-American Foundation award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the Inter-American Foundation awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless § 1008.301 or the award document designates a central point for the receipt of the notices. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
#### § 1508.720 How may I contest a suspension?

If you as a respondent wish to contest a suspension, you or your representative must provide the suspending official with information in opposition to the suspension. You may do this orally or in writing, but any information provided orally that you consider important must also be submitted in writing for the official record.
### §2689m. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §225, as added Pub. L. 94–63, title III, §303, July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 326; amended Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §110(c), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3420, which related to prerequisites, amount, procedures, etc., for recovery of payments by the United States, was transferred to section 238l of this title.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 20, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT: July 16, 2014, Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 16, 2014

to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The majority of the 

discussion centered on how goals were established for the states in Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, 

Missouri, and Nebraska. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on 

June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

EPA Region 7:

Joshua Tapp

Mark A. Smith

Ward Burns

Toni Gargas

Becky Weber

Amy Bhesania

John Smith

Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources:

Catherine Fitzsimmons

Martie Stein

Jason Marcel

Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment

Tom Gross

Melissa Weide

Miles Stotts

Lynn Deahl

Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources 

Mark Leath

Paul Myers

Emily Wilbur

Nebraska Department of 

Environmental Quality

Shelly Schneider

Adam Yarina

Katie Gutierrez

Brian Kozisek
§ 1305.9 Restrictions that apply to released documents. ( a ) The General Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the release of official documents and information, including the requirement that parties to the proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure. The terms of the protective order or of the confidentiality agreement must be acceptable to the General Counsel. In cases where protective orders or confidentiality agreements have already been executed, MCC may condition the release of official documents and information on an amendment to the existing protective order or confidentiality agreement.
( b ) If the General Counsel so determines, original MCC documents may be presented in response to a demand, but they are not to be presented as evidence or otherwise used in a manner by which they could lose their identity as official MCC documents nor are they to be marked or altered. In lieu of original records, certified copies will be presented for evidentiary purposes. (See 28 U.S.C. 1733).
Exhibit 10.26



 Exhibit 10.26 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO THE 
 BEARINGPOINT, INC. 401(k) PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, BearingPoint, Inc. (the “Corporation”) sponsors and maintains the BearingPoint, Inc. 401 (k) Plan
(the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority
under Section 16.1 of the Plan, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to change the Plan Year to the calendar year. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of May 1, 2006. 
  
 1. Item (21), the definition of “Plan Year,” under Article 2, Definitions, is amended to read as follows
(revisions are underlined): 
  
 (21) Plan
Year. Through and including April 30, 2006, the period commencing on February 1, 2000 and ending on
April 30, 2000, and each subsequent 12 consecutive month period beginning on May 1, and ending on the next April 30. Effective May 1, 2006, there shall be a short Plan Year beginning on May 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2006,
and subsequent Plan Years shall begin on January 1 and end on the next December 31. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed on behalf of the Corporation by the undersigned duly authorized member of the Corporation. 
  

									
	 	 	 	 	 BEARINGPOINT. INC.

				
	 Date: November 1, 2005
	 	 	 	 By:
	 	/S/    BRIAN
DAVENPORT        
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Its:
	 	Brian Davenport, Global Human Resources
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0395 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-007-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 

206L-4 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 697 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions are intended to prevent failure of the main rotor blade and subsequent loss 

of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $44,958

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour for the 

determination)

(8 x $85/work-hour for the 

replacement)

$85

$680

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $45,638

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
§ 270.17a-10 Exemption for transactions with certain subadvisory affiliates. ( a ) *Exemption.* A person that is prohibited by section 17(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a)) from entering into a transaction with a fund solely because such person is, or is an affiliated person of, a subadviser of the fund, or a subadviser of a fund that is under common control with the fund, may nonetheless enter into such transaction, if: ( 1 ) *Prohibited relationship.* The person is not, and is not an affiliated person of, an investment adviser responsible for providing advice with respect to the portion of the fund for which the transaction is entered into, or of any promoter, underwriter, officer, director, member of an advisory board, or employee of the fund.
( 2 ) *Prohibited conduct.* The advisory contracts of the subadviser that is (or whose affiliated person is) entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the fund (or portion of the fund) entering into the transaction: ( i ) Prohibit them from consulting with each other concerning transactions for the fund in securities or other assets; and
( ii ) If both such subadvisers are responsible for providing investment advice to the fund, limit the subadvisers' responsibility in providing advice with respect to a discrete portion of the fund's portfolio.
( b ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) *Fund* means a registered investment company and includes a separate series of a registered investment company.
( 2 ) *Subadviser* means an investment adviser as defined in section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(20)(B)).
[68 FR 3153, Jan. 22, 2003]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.1

                              AMENDMENT NO. 2005-1
                                     TO THE
                      ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. 401(K) PLAN


        WHEREAS, Arrow International, Inc. (the "Employer") sponsors and
maintains the Arrow International, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"); and

        WHEREAS, the Employer has reserved the right to amend the Plan at any
time pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Plan; and

        WHEREAS, the Employer desires to amend the Plan to comply with the
provisions of section 401(a)(31)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended;

        NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

        1.      Effective March 28, 2005, Schedule G to the Plan is amended by
adding a new Section G.14 as follows:

                G.14    DIRECT ROLLOVERS OF MANDATORY DISTRIBUTIONS.

                        (a)     EFFECTIVE DATE. This Section G.14 shall apply to
                mandatory distributions made on or after March 28, 2005.

                        (b)     SINGLE-SUM PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF $1,000. If a
                single-sum to a Participant under Section 8.3(a) of the Plan
                exceeds $1,000 and the Participant has not yet attained Normal
                Retirement Age, the Retirement Committee shall distribute the
                payment in a direct rollover to an individual retirement account
                or individual retirement annuity designated by the Retirement
                Committee for the benefit of the Participant, unless the
                Participant elects to have such payment (i) paid directly to an
                eligible retirement plan, as defined in Section 7.9(d) of the
                Plan (as modified in Section G.5(a) above), specified by the
                Participant in a direct rollover, or (ii) paid directly to the
                Participant.

                This Section G.14 amends Sections 8.3(a) of the Plan.


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. has caused this Amendment
No. 2005-1 to the Plan to be duly executed this ________ day of
___________________________, 2005.


ATTEST:                                 ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC.



__________________________________      By:_____________________________________
#### § 1001.1 Cross-references to employee ethical conduct standards and financial disclosure regulations.

Directors and other employees of the Inter-American Foundation should refer to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, the Inter-American Foundation regulations at 5 CFR part 7301 which supplement the executive branch standards, and the executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634.

[59 FR 3772, Jan. 27, 1994]