alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1995 ANNUAL REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           9,359
<SECURITIES>                                     8,163
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,747
<PP&E>                                         111,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,945
<BONDS>                                         21,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,350
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,156
<SALES>                                          2,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,757
<CGS>                                            2,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,054
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,687
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,687
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                                  DYNCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                          COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                      (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
   

                                                        March 27,      March 28,
     PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED                             1997           1996
Earnings:
  Earnings from continuing operations                    $  2,311     $   2,241
  Preferred stock Class C dividends not
    declared or recorded                                        -          (534)
  Common stockholders' share of earnings                 $  2,311     $   1,707

Shares:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding            8,628,228     8,154,327
  Common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants       2,321,176     4,074,291
  Common stock issuable upon exercise of stock options    128,749         2,387
                                                       11,078,153    12,231,005
Common stockholders' share of earnings per
  common share                                           $   0.21     $    0.14
# C_2023204EN.01000201.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11046 – IBV / ACEN / ACRI / SINGAPORE JV / TAIWAN JV / PHILIPPINES JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 204/02)

On 6 June 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11046. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11046. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 10.3

                               AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
                           PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                              CANTOP VENTURES INC.
                                       AND
                                  LARRY SOSTAD

                Originally Dated as of the 3rd day of March, 2005


WHEREAS, Larry Sostad ("Sostad") and Cantop Ventures, Inc. ("Cantop")
(collectively herein the "Parties") entered into an agreement ("Agreement") on
March 3, 2005 whereby Cantop purchased 100% interest in a mineral exploration
claim located approximately 2 kilometers East of Deep Water Bay (N.T.S. 92K 03W)
Quadra Island, British Columbia commonly known as the Copper Road I - VI Claim;
and

WHEREAS, the Expiry Date of the Agreement was March 3, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to extend the Expiry Date to January 30, 2007.

THE PARTIES AGREE HEREIN, that the Agreement be amended to extend the Expiry

Date to January 30, 2007.


Dated: March 3, 2006

                                  LARRY SOSTAD



                                  By: /s/ Larry Sostad
                                     -------------------------------



                                  CANTOP VENTURES, INC.



                                  By: /s/ Christopher Paterson
                                     -------------------------------
                                     Christopher Paterson
### §3331. Oath of office

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 16. | R.S. §1757.May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §§2, 3, 23 Stat. 22. |

Statutes at Large

May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §§2, 3, 23 Stat. 22.

All but the quoted language in R.S. §1757 is omitted as obsolete since R.S. §1757 was originally an alternative oath to the oath prescribed in R.S. §1756 which oath was repealed by the Act of May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §2, 23 Stat. 22. The words "An individual, except the President, . . . in the civil service or uniformed services" are substituted for "any person . . . either in the civil, military, or naval service, except the President of the United States". The second sentence of former section 16 is changed to read, "This section does not affect other oaths required by law.".

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
### [§3393a. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–296, title XIII, §1321(a)(1)(B), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2296]

Section, added Pub. L. 101–194, title V, §506(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1756, related to recertification of career appointees.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    JACK C.
BRIDGESJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-President7/29/03Date
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA (the
"Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Craig T Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
Richard A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
        or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
        the Company.

                                    /s/ Craig T Dunham
                                   -------------------
                                   Craig T Dunham
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer

                                   /s/ Richard A. Johnson
                                   -------------------
                                   Richard A. Johnson
                                   Chief Financial Officer
February 16, 2010
From: Jeremy Arling/DC/USEPA/US To: Docket Date: 08/02/2011 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Question on OAR-2010-1040-draft-0006

Arkema agreed to waive their CBI claim on this document when they submitted it as part of the record in the lawsuit they brought against the EPA. The version of the document in the file is part of the lawsuit's public record and has been released before.

Jeremy Arling U.S. EPA Stratospheric Protection Division Office of Atmospheric Programs Mail Code: 6205J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460-0001 202-343-9055 202-343-2338 (f) arling.jeremy@epa.gov
Exhibit 21

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF HICKORY TECHCORPORATION**

 
|                                                |   | Jurisdiction of |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
| Subsidiaries                                        |   | Incorporation   |
|                                                |   |            |
| Mankato Citizens Telephone Company                  |   | Minnesota       |
| Mid-Communications, Inc.                            |   | Minnesota       |
| Cable Network, Inc.                                 |   | Minnesota       |
| Heartland Telecommunications Company of Iowa,  Inc. |   | Minnesota       |
| Crystal Communications, Inc.                        |   | Minnesota       |
| Minnesota Southern Wireless Company                 |   | Minnesota       |
| National Independent Billing, Inc.                  |   | Minnesota       |
| Collins Communications Systems Co.                  |   | Minnesota       |

 

All such subsidiariesare 100% owned by Hickory Tech Corporation. The financial statements of allsuch subsidiaries are included in the Consolidated Financial Statements ofHickory Tech Corporation.

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ramon G. Morell, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, unless appellant perfects appeal, files note of issue, and files and serves record and brief on or before August 15, 19.60 and is ready for argument at the September Term of this court, in which event the motion is denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,160
<SECURITIES>                                    20,577
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                      4,611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,388
<PP&E>                                           4,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,412
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,881
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,445
<SALES>                                         35,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,120
<CGS>                                           15,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    12
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        


</TABLE>
#### WOOD, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by Henrietta C. Wood against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion denied.
§ 245.22 Policy for application of EATPL. ( a ) The originator of an aircraft flight operation under the EATPL shall be responsible for determining and verifying that the mission meets the appropriate definition and priority in accordance with the list described in § 245.22 of this part , and ensuring a security check of crew, cargo and aircraft has been completed prior to take off.
( b ) The individual filing the flight plan will be responsible for including the priority number as determined by the originator of the aircraft flight operation, in the remarks section of the flight plan.
( c ) Situations may occur that cannot be controlled by the EATPL. Aircraft emergencies and inbound international flights that have reached the point of no return, including foreign air carrier flights en route to safe haven airports in accordance with specific international agreements are examples of such situations. These events must be treated individually through coordination between ATC and appropriate military authorities in consideration of the urgency of the in-flight situation and existing tactical military conditions.
( d ) *Exceptions to EATPL.* ( 1 ) DoD aircraft in priorities three through seven that do not meet EATPL restrictions may request an exemption from the appropriate military authority. For the contiguous 48 U.S. states, Alaska, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada, requests shall be submitted to the appropriate NORAD Sector. For Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, other U.S. Pacific Territories, and Pacific oceanic airspace over which FAA has air traffic control jurisdiction by international agreement, requests shall be submitted to the designated AADC.
( 2 ) For Federal, State, local government agencies and aircraft in priority eight, a Security Control Authorization may be granted on a case-by-case basis. Requests for SCAs will be coordinated through TSA. TSA will forward those requests that it recommends for approval to the appropriate military authority. Aircraft with a SCA shall have a Security Assurance Check prior to take off. Refer to specific SCA procedures provided in separate agreement between the appropriate military authority and TSA.
[71 FR 61889, Oct. 20, 2006; 71 FR 66110, Nov. 13, 2006]
§ 200.1550 Collection of penalties and assessments. ( a ) Once a determination by the Secretary has become final, collection of any penalty and assessment will be the responsibility of the Defense Health Agency.
( b ) A penalty or an assessment imposed under this part may be compromised by the DHA and may be recovered in a civil action brought in the United States district court for the district where the claim was presented or where the respondent resides.
( c ) The amount of penalty or assessment, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any sum then or later owing by the United States Government or a State agency to the person against whom the penalty or assessment has been assessed.
( d ) Matters that were raised, or that could have been raised, in a hearing before an ALJ or in an appeal under section 1128A(e) of the Social Security Act may not be raised as a defense in a civil action by the United States to collect a penalty or assessment under this part.
**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF HICKORYTECH CORPORATION**

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**                                   | ** ** | **Jurisdiction  of Incorporation** |
|----------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|
|                                                     |       |                               |
| Mankato Citizens Telephone Company                       |       | Minnesota                          |
| Mid-Communications, Inc.                            |       | Minnesota                          |
| Cable Network, Inc.                                 |       | Minnesota                          |
| Heartland Telecommunications Company of  Iowa, Inc. |       | Minnesota                          |
| Crystal Communications, Inc.                        |       | Minnesota                          |
| National Independent Billing, Inc.                  |       | Minnesota                          |
| Enventis Telecom, Inc.                              |       | Minnesota                          |

 

All such subsidiaries are 100% owned by Hickory TechCorporation. The financial statements of all such subsidiaries are included inthe Consolidated Financial Statements of Hickory Tech Corporation. Hickory TechCorporation is incorporated in Minnesota.

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

        We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-78051)and Form S-8 (No. 333-69827, 033-65142, 033-62718, 033-49704,333-107932, 333-78051 and 333-127394) of Hickory Tech Corporation of our reportdated March 14, 2007 relating to the financial statements and financialstatement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 
| /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota         |   |
| March 4,  2009             |   |

 

----
# C_2008022EN.01000301.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany)) — Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

(Case C-298/05) (1)

1

(Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Taxes on revenue and wealth - Conditions for taxing the profits of an establishment situated in another Member State - Double taxation convention - Methods of exempting or offsetting tax)

(2008/C 22/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co.

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Münster — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 56 EC, 57 EC and 58 EC — Freedom of establishment and free movement of capital — Controlled-foreign-corporation income which is the designated passive income of a foreign permanent establishment of a party with unlimited liability to tax in Germany — National legislation offsetting the foreign tax on that income against national tax, contrary to the provisions of the double taxation convention with Belgium, which provides for use of the method of exemption from taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State under which the income of a resident national derived from capital invested in an establishment which has its registered office in another Member State is, notwithstanding the existence of a double taxation convention concluded with the Member State in which the establishment has its registered office, not exempted from national income tax but is subject to national taxation against which the tax levied in the other Member State is set off.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

1

---
§ 1701.16 Contractors. ( a ) Any approved contract for the operation of a Privacy Act system of records to accomplish a function of the ODNI will contain the Privacy Act provisions prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) at 48 CFR part 24, requiring the contractor to comply with the Privacy Act and this subpart. The contracting component will be responsible for ensuring that the contractor complies with these contract requirements. This section does not apply to systems of records maintained by a contractor as a function of management discretion, e.g., the contractor's personnel records.
( b ) Where the contract contains a provision requiring the contractor to comply with the Privacy Act and this subpart, the contractor and any employee of the contractor will be considered employees of the ODNI for purposes of the criminal penalties of the Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(i).
### UAS to be used by the petitioner

FCC compliance label