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



                                                                      Exhibit 11



                          CENTRAL SPRINKLER CORPORATION

                            EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)





                                   Year Ended     Year Ended     Year Ended
                                   October 31,    October 31,   October 31,
                                      1997           1996           1995
                                   -----------    -----------   -----------


Net income (loss)                    $(2,542)       $ 3,763        $ 8,458
                                     =======        =======        =======
                                                                  
Average number of common shares                                   
  outstanding                          3,843          3,793          3,902
                                                                  
Adjustment to exclude average                                     
  unreleased common shares in ESOP      (604)          (640)          (672)
                                                                  
Adjustment for assumed conversion                                 
  of stock options                      --              177            152
                                     -------        -------        -------
                                                                  
Average number of common shares        3,239          3,330          3,382
                                     =======        =======        =======
                                                                  
                                                                  
Net income (loss) per common share   $  (.78)       $  1.13        $  2.50
                                     =======        =======        =======
### §496. Relation to the National Security Council

The President may convene joint meetings of the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council with participation by members of either Council or as the President may otherwise direct.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title IX, §906, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2259.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at Sept. 30, 2000 and the Company's
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9760
<ALLOWANCES>                                       403
<INVENTORY>                                       3596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13772
<PP&E>                                            6242
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   17416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14280
<BONDS>                                            303
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1281
<OTHER-SE>                                         292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     17416
<SALES>                                          29090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 29137
<CGS>                                            25912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    25912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (493)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)


</TABLE>
#### E. C. Meyers, trading as Meyers Motor Car Company, appellant, v. Cox-Stratton Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 29,583.

Suit on contract of sale. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James J. O’Toole, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 9, 1925.

Rehearing denied March 23, 1925.

D. M. Dever and Moses H. Kamerman, for appellant.

Tyrell & McCarthy and Frank J. Tyrell, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,075,000
<SECURITIES>                                16,487,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,699,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   233,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,302,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,212,000
<PP&E>                                      13,225,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,953,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,043,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,330,000
<BONDS>                                      7,274,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,590,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,043,000
<SALES>                                      6,003,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,003,000
<CGS>                                        4,105,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,579,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             421,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,683,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,683,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,683,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131138 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131138 

 COA: 267064 

Macomb CC: 01-002667-FH 

KENNETH FOSTER PETTY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
131 STAT. 2042 PUBLIC LAW 115–95—DEC. 20, 2017 

Public Law 115–95 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts with nonprofit 

organizations to investigate medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Enhancing Veteran Care Act’’. 

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT 

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may contract with a nonprofit organization that accredits health care 

organizations and programs in the United States to investigate 

a medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs to assess 

and report deficiencies of the facilities at such medical center. 

(b) AUTHORITY OF DIRECTORS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to coordination under paragraph 

(2), the Secretary shall delegate the authority under subsection 

(a) to contract for an investigation at a medical center of the 

Department to the Director of the Veterans Integrated Service 

Network in which the medical center is located or the director 

of such medical center. 

(2) COORDINATION.—Before entering into a contract under 

paragraph (1), the Director of a Veterans Integrated Service 

Network or the director of a medical center, as the case may 

be, shall notify the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Inspector 

General of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Comptroller General of the United States for purposes of coordinating 

any investigation conducted pursuant to such contract with 

any other investigations that may be ongoing. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be 

construed— 

(1) to prevent the Office of the Inspector General of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs from conducting any review, 

audit, evaluation, or inspection regarding a topic for which 

an investigation is conducted under this section; or 

(2) to modify the requirement that employees of the Department assist with any review, audit, evaluation, or inspection 

Notification. 

Assessment. 

Reports. 

38 USC 1701 

note. 

Enhancing 

Veteran Care 

Act. 

38 USC 101 note. 

Dec. 20, 2017 

[S. 1266] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
PUBLIC LAW 115–95—DEC. 20, 2017 131 STAT. 2043 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1266: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Nov. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 5, 6, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department. 

Approved December 20, 2017. 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
#### § 1605.21 Area.

The Director of Selective Service shall establish one or more district appeal boards in each of the Federal Judicial Districts in the several states of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Director of Selective Service may establish panels of appeal boards.
From: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com [mailto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com]

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:20 PM

To: Richard Parker
Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gayt an; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fe rnstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Cork ran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coug hlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaro n; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert va n Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard"

Mr Parker,

Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, Na tional Impact Analysis from the September 2011 analysis that states that the NES are "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard." I'm interpreting this as meaning that the savings calculated are agains t the "affected stock", or the transformers that are currently in the field rather than the savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or EL0.

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES analysis is "double counting" the energy savings which have already been implemented by the 2007 rule. Since we are comparing LCC and Payback against EL0, shouldn't the NES analysis be relative to the current EL0 standard rather than using a scenario of "no standard"?

Regards,

Eric Petersen Director Customer Technical Services and Research AK Steel Corporation

Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
§ 1903.9 Explosives. ( a ) Using, possessing, storing, or transporting explosives, blasting agents, ammunition or explosive materials is prohibited on any Agency installation, except as authorized by the CIA Director of Security. When permitted, the use, possession, storage, and transportation shall be in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, and shall also be in accordance with applicable Central Intelligence Agency rules and regulations in this chapter.
( b ) Using, possessing, storing, or transporting items intended to be used to fabricate an explosive or incendiary device, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes is prohibited.
[63 FR 44786, Aug. 21, 1998, as amended at 88 FR 20762, Apr. 7, 2023]
#### § 77.1002 Box cuts; spoil material placement.

When box cuts are made, necessary precautions shall be taken to minimize the possibility of spoil material rolling into the pit.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 – Socratec v Commission**

**(Case T-269/03)**

Competition – Concentrations – Market in road traffic telematic systems – Applicant declared insolvent in course of proceedings – No further legal interest in bringing proceedings – No need to adjudicate

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for an actual and current interest – Action seeking annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration operation compatible with the common market – Action brought by a competitor of the parties to the operation put into liquidation in the course of the proceedings (Art.
230 EC) (see paras 20, 36-41, 43, 47)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2003/792/EC of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 – DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom Joint Venture) (OJ 2003 L 300, p. 62). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Socratec – Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission, Daimler AG, Daimler Financial Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and Toll Collect GmbH; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe BV to bear its own costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
#### In the Matter of Florence Lessey, an Incompetent. Nelson L. Cameron, Appellant; Abraham Dollinger et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on May 15, 1963, appointing ancillary committee and fixing fee of special *788guardian unanimously modified on the law and on the facts and as a matter of discretion to vacate the appointment of the ancillary committee and to reduce the fee of the special guardian to $750, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. As the incompetent died during the pendency of this appeal and before the designated ancillary committee qualified, the application for appointment of such a committee abated. We find that the services of the special guardian were not unusual or extensive and the time spent would be amply compensated for by a fee of $750. The argument that the fee awarded is justified by the fact that the counsel for the committee received a fee of $1,000 without objection is without merit on this question. No appeal was taken from this disposition in the order and it would be unwise to assume that we approve the fee, either intrinsically or as a basis for comparison. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
c

It was nice talking to you this afternoon. I learnt during our conversation that the tests at Felman is

scheduled to be completed this Friday (8/17). You also told me the typical turnaround time for you to

report the results back to us is 21 days. However, you will try to shorten the turnaround time to 14 days.

That means we should expect to have the results from you anywhere between September 4 to September

10. Since we are currently planning our activities based on the December promulgation date, it is unlikely

that we will be able to wait for the test results and include them in our data analysis. If we are able to

include these results at a later date, we will try to, but there is no promise.

You can help yourself though by providing us more test data for the three furnaces from prior tests (andthus increase the universe of data). As mentioned in my last email to Laura, we obtained from WV DEP

test summaries for Furnaces #5 and 7 tested in November, 2010. We think there might have been some

mix-up on the air flow calculations. If we are able to correct the calculations, we will include the November

2010 tests. We contacted the test contractor, Custom Stack Analysis, today. The contact, Jim Gray, is on

vacation. If you can scan the November 2010 test report and email to me sometime today, that would be

great. You may need to break the pages to different sections and scan the sections as smaller files. I

understand this same contractor also tested the three furnaces in 2011. Could you scan the 2011 report

sometime today as well? We will attempt to include the 2010 and 2011 test results in our analysis if the

results are valid.

We also discussed to some extent why Felman believes the July 2010 ICR test was invalid. You

mentioned that the ICR test was managed by ERSG, but subcontracted out to Custom Stack Analysis.

You also pointed out that the Mn% was measured incorrectly at 3%, which we agree. (In fact I raised that

issue to Paul Pigott in an email to him dated 1217/2010). I also pointed out to you that the manganese

measurement (Method 29) is different from the particulate emission measurement (Method 5D). We did

not see any issue with the particulate measurement. We agreed that either you or Laura will provide us a

summary of the issues for the ICR test by close of business tomorrow.

I will be out of the office this Friday and will return next Monday. During my absence, I will not have email

access. Therefore it is pertinent that you will need to provide all the information I requested by tomorrowso that my contractor can finish the analysis on Friday.

Thanks.

Conrad K. Chin

Mail Code D243-02

Metals and Minerals Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919-541-1512 (voice)

919-541-3207 (fax)

“Laura K. McAfee” I’m sorry: you mean by the day after tomorrow?... 08/14/2012 02:00:30 PM

From: “Laura K. McAfee” <LMcAfee@bdlaw.com>

To: Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPNUS@EPA
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software WIND ROSE PLOT: 

### Highway 24 SO2 Monitor - August 2014 to November 2015 Colorado Springs, CO

COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME: MODELER:

DATE: 

### 1/28/2016 PROJECT NO.: NORTH

SOUTH WEST EAST 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%



### WIND SPEED (m/s)>= 11.10 8.80 - 11.10 5.70 - 8.80 3.60 - 5.70 1.50 - 3.60 0.50 - 1.50 Calms: 9.93%

TOTAL COUNT: 

### 11375 hrs. CALM WINDS: 

### 9.93% DATA PERIOD: 

### Start Date: 8/14/2014 - 00:00 End Date: 11/30/2015 - 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED: 

### 1.19 m/s DISPLAY: 

### Wind Speed Direction (blowing from)
SERVED APRIL 23,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

'OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2013 - 0046 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on June 25,26 and 27,2013, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 498, 

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 

53202. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The 

parties should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day. 

. ,/. 

<::;r,;·~·'j~,-:.-/-\, : 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 

1 
2 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 10001 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Barnett III, Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 847-809-9520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jeanette B. Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, AL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0046 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### § 882.10 Information collection.

In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements of part 882 and assigned it control number 1029-0057. This information is being collected to meet the mandate of section 408 of SMCRA, which allows the State or Indian tribe to file liens on private property that has been reclaimed under certain conditions. This information will be used by the regulatory authority to ensure that the State or Indian tribe has sufficient programmatic capability to file liens to recover costs for reclaiming private lands. States and Indian tribes are required to respond to obtain a benefit in accordance with SMCRA. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

[73 FR 67642, Nov. 14, 2008]