alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

The Board of Directors McEwen Mining Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration statements: Nos. 333-144563, 333-144569, 333-112269, 333-36600, 333-179144 and 333-179143 on Form S-8, No. 333-157998 on Form S-3, and Nos. 333-138272, 333-138271, 333-138233 and 333-178306 on Form S-4 of McEwen Mining Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2012 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of McEwen Mining Inc. as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, and all related financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, which reports appears in the December 31, 2011 annual report on Form 10-K of McEwen Mining Inc.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |
| Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public   Accountants |
| Toronto, Canada                                      |
|                                                 |
| March 8, 2012                                   |

 

----
Exhibit 1.5



                                    Autoriteit
                                    Financiet Markten
















Form for the disclosure of securities transactions
in the own issuing institution

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing institution



Part 1

<S>                                                               <C>
1.   Name of issuing institution:                                 New Skies Satellites N.V.

2.   Name of person obliged to notify:                            New Skies Satellites N.V.


Sort of security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3.   Sort of security:                                            Ordinary shares

     (Share/Bond/Option/Warrant/other)

4.   To be filled out if applicable:

               Nominal value of the security:                     0.05 EUR

               Optional series (call option/put option):

               Exercise price:

               Expiration date:


Transaction in the security indicated in questions 3 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5.   Date of the transaction:                                     11-03-03

6a.  Number of securities acquired in the transaction:            31,802

 b.  Number of securities sold in the transaction:

7.   Price of the securities:                                     3.75EUR

8.   Open/Close (in case of options)











To the best of my knowledge and belief I certify that the information set forth
in this statement is true, complete and correct:


Mary J. Dent, General Counsel of New Skies Satellites N.V.,
------------------------------------------------------------
Name

Rooseveltplantsoen 4                                              13 March 2003
------------------------------------------------------------      -----------------------------
Address                                                           Date

2517 KR The Hague
------------------------------------------------------------      -----------------------------
Postal code & city & country                                      Signature
</TABLE>
Exhibit 11.1

CYANOTECH CORPORATION  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE  Fiscal years ended March 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001

2003

2002

2001BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARENet loss

$
(1,775,000
)
$
(2,589,000
)
$
(1,067,000
)Weighted average Common Shares outstanding


17,840,000


17,033,000


15,997,000Net loss per Common Share

$
(0.10
)
$
(0.15
)
$
(0.07
)


For
the years ended March 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, warrants and options to purchase Common Stock shares of the Company and convertible debentures were outstanding, but were not
included in the 2003, 2002 and 2001 computation of diluted net loss per common share because the inclusion of these securities would have had an antidilutive effect on the net loss per common share.

During
the year ended March 31, 2001, convertible preferred stock was outstanding, but was not included in the 2001 computation of diluted net loss per common share because the
inclusion of these securities would have had an antidilutive effect on the net loss per common share.

---

QuickLinks
Attorneys for AppellantAttorney for Appellee

Janice L. StevensSteve Carter

Indianapolis, IndianaAttorney General of Indiana

Cynthia L. Ploughe

Deputy Attorney General

______________________________________________________________________________

# In the

# Indiana Supreme Court 

_________________________________

No. 49S05-0503-CR-125

Arturo Aguilar

*Appellant (Defendant below),*

v.

State of Indiana, 

*Appellee (Plaintiff  below)*.

_________________________________

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 6, No. 49G06-0101-CF-21909,

The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge

_________________________________

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A05-0307-CR-370

_________________________________

May 11, 2005

Per Curiam.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Aguilar’s conviction for murder but granted Aguilar’s Petition For Rehearing and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

**Background**

Arturo Aguilar was convicted of murder and sentenced to the presumptive term of 55 years, plus 10 additional years for aggravating circumstances.  *See* Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3.

On appeal, Aguilar’s “Brief Of Defendant/Appellant” and “Reply Brief of Defendant/Appellant” challenged his conviction but made no challenge to his sentence.  On July 9, 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.  Aguilar v. State, 811 N.E.2d 476, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

On July 19, 2004, Aguilar filed a Petition For Rehearing contending his sentence should be vacated because it violated Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  On January 18, 2005, the Court of Appeals granted his Petition For Rehearing and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.  Aguilar v. State, 820 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).  The State thereafter filed a Petition To Transfer, which we granted on March 24, 2005.

**Discussion**

In Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005), we set forth parameters under which an appellant can raise a Blakely claim for the first time on appeal even if the appellant did not preserve such a claim by making an appropriate objection in the trial court.  However, we held that “those defendants who did not appeal their sentence at all will have forfeited any Blakely claim.”  Id. at 691.  Aguilar did not appeal his sentence; rather, his only sentencing challenge came after the Court of Appeals issued its decision on the single, non-sentencing issue he raised.  Therefore, Aguilar is not entitled to relief under Smylie.

**Conclusion**

We summarily affirm, *see* App. R. 58(A)(2), the Court of Appeals’ principal opinion affirming Aguilar’s conviction, *see*Aguilar, 811 N.E.2d 476.  The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All justices concur.

PAGE  

2
### §453c. Disposition of equines unfit for service

None of the funds made available in this or any other Act for fiscal year 2012 and thereafter may be used to destroy or put out to pasture any horse or other equine belonging to any component or agency of the Department of Homeland Security that has become unfit for service, unless the trainer or handler is first given the option to take possession of the equine through an adoption program that has safeguards against slaughter and inhumane treatment.

(Pub. L. 112–74, div. D, title V, §526, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 974.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means div. D of Pub. L. 112–74, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 943, known as the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.
- 000100fc
- 000200fi
- 000300tp
- 00040000
- 00050000
- 00060000
- 0007r001
- 0008r002
- 00090001
- 00100002
- 00110003
- 00120004
- 00130005
- 00140006
- 00150007
- 00160008
- 00170009
- 00180010
- 00190011
- 00200012
- 00210013
- 00220014
- 00230015
- 00240016
- 00250017
- 00260018
- 00270019
- 00280020
- 00290021
- 00300022
- 00310023
- 00320024
- 003300bi
- 003400bc
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

October 19, 2018 

# Order

Clerk Octo ber 1 9 , 2018

15 8524 ( 58 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

, SC: 15 8524

v COA: 33 7576

Oakland CC: 2016

- 260209

- FC

ROBERT WAYNE PRUESNER

, Defendant

- Appell ee

.

____________________________________ _ _/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellee to extend the time

for filing h is answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will

be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before Nov ember 27 , 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,953,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,830,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,023,364
<PP&E>                                       9,955,853
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,387,366)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,376,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,494,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,455
<COMMON>                                        48,579
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,487,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,376,317
<SALES>                                     14,862,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,862,714
<CGS>                                        8,151,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,151,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,490,111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,822,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,822,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,822,536)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.98)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of I. Frank Miller v. Thomas Thacher, as Superintendent of Insurance.

Motion to dismiss proceeding granted, with $10 costs. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83514-83515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28206]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 2108]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 208 Under Alternative Site 
Framework; New London, Connecticut

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for ``. . .the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Board to grant to qualified 
corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or 
adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 
CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization 
of zones;
    Whereas, the New London Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 208, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ 
Docket B-44-2020, docketed July 13, 2020) for authority to reorganize 
under the ASF with a service area of New London County, Connecticut, 
adjacent to the New London Customs and Border Protection port of entry, 
and FTZ 208's existing Site1 would be categorized as a magnet site;
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (85 FR 44040, July 21, 2020) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the

[[Page 83515]]

requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 208 under the ASF is approved, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the 
zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would 
terminate authority for Site 1 if not activated within five years from 
the month of approval.

    Dated: December 17, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-28206 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### § 2400.40 Responsibility.

The Director, OSTP is the senior OSTP official having authority and responsibility to ensure effective and uniform compliance with and implementation of Executive Order 12356 and its implementing Directive No. 1. As such, the Director, OSTP, shall have primary responsibility for providing guidance, oversight and approval of policy and procedures governing the OSTP Information Security Program. The Director, OSTP, may approve waivers or exceptions to the provisions of this regulation to the extent such action is consistent with Executive Order 12356 and Directive No. 1.
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Estimates of the number of retail stations offering E85

From: David Korotney, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

To: EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111

One of the elements of an analysis of the volume of E85 that can be consumed is the 

number of retail stations that are expected to offer E85. To this end, we have evaluated two 

sources of information on E85 stations:

• DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center (www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/)

• E85prices.com

Historical data from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) was provided by the 

Clean Cities Technical Response Service, and included E85 station counts by state and month for 

the period June 2007 through April 2014.

1

 Historical data from E85prices.com was derived 

through a web archival service (http://archive.org/web/). The nationwide E85 station counts 

from both sources are shown below for the period January 2009 - April 2014.

The disparity between the two sets of E85 station counts can be traced to differences in 

the purposes of the two databases:

 

1 The nationwide E85 station count was also available through August 2014 from the AFDC website, but this data 

did not include station counts by state.

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2,700

2,900

3,100

3,300

3,500

1/1/2009

7/20/2009

2/5/2010

8/24/20103/12/20119/28/20114/15/201211/1/20125/20/201312/6/2013

Number of service stations offering E85
• E85prices.com is a decentralized forum for users to record E85 and gasoline prices at 

specific retail stations. There does not appear to be any ongoing management of the 

database by a single person or group to verify that a retail station offering E85 should 

remain in the database long after the last price data for that station is recorded.

• The AFDC database is a centralized database that includes periodic reviews to ensure 

that the information it contains is accurate. It is clear from the data provided on E85 

station counts by month and state that the E85 stations included in the AFDC 

database fluctuated up and down over time, presumably reflecting deletions as well as 

additions to the database.

The E85prices.com database is likely to include all stations that have ever offered E85 rather 

than those stations that currently offer E85. As a result, the data from AFDC is likely to more 

accurately reflect the number of stations currently offering E85. To evaluate this assumption, we 

adjusted the data from E85prices.com to include those occasions wherein the number of E85 

stations in a given state declined from one month to the next according to the AFDC data. The 

result was that the E85prices.com data converges with the AFDC data.

Based on this analysis, the AFDC database appears to provide a more accurate estimate of the 

number of retail stations that actually offer E85.

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

2,500

2,700

2,900

3,100

3,300

1/1/2009

7/20/2009

2/5/2010

8/24/20103/12/20119/28/20114/15/201211/1/20125/20/201312/6/2013

Number of service stations offering E85
Exhibit 99


                                   Certificate

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                            (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)






         I, Dawn E. Neuman, duly authorized member of the SENA 401(k) Board,
certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 11-K of
Stora Enso Oyj (Stora Enso Corporation) relating to the SENA 401(k) Plan for
Union Members for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (i) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and (ii) the information contained therein fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the SENA
401(k) Plan for Union Members.





Dated: September 29, 2003                    By /s/ Dawn E. Neuman
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Dawn E. Neuman
                                                Member, SENA 401(k) Board
                                                On behalf of the SENA 401(k)
                                                Board as Plan Administrator
§ 21.100 What are the purposes of this part? This part of the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations: ( a ) Provides general information about the Defense Grant and Agreement Regulatory System (DGARS).
( b ) Sets forth general policies and procedures related to DoD Components' overall management of functions related to assistance and certain other nonprocurement instruments subject to the DGARS (*see* § 21.205(b)).
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2006 – Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted white bottle)**

**(Case T-190/04)**

Community trade mark – Shape of a frosted white bottle – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3) and (6)) (see paras 15-18, 44-47)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Compliance with rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art.
73) (see paras 28-30, 41-42)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4) concerning registration of a mark in the form of a frosted white bottle as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Freixenet, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a frosted white bottle for goods in Class 33 – Application No 32532 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,265)
<INVENTORY>                                     52,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,495
<PP&E>                                          91,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                (66,679)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,209
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,601
<SALES>                                         65,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,345
<CGS>                                           44,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                       413
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21


</TABLE>