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

                        WATER CHEF, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                               SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                          September 30,                 September 30
                                       ------------------           -------------------
                                       1997          1996           1997           1996
                                       ------------------           -------------------
<S>                                 <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>
Common shares outstanding
  beginning of period ...........  35,036,237   15,836,574    35,036,237    15,836,574

Effect of weighting shares:
  Shares issued .................          --           --            --            --
                                   ----------  -----------   -----------   -----------

Weighted shares .................  35,036,237   15,836,574    35,036,237    15,836,574
                                   ==========  ===========   ===========   ===========


The net gain (loss) per share was calculated as follows:

Net gain (loss) available
  for common stock ..............  $  173,929   $ (158,798)  $ (322,910)   $   (3,360)

Weighted Shares .................  35,036,237   15,836,574   35,036,237    15,836,574
                                   ==========   ==========   ==========    ==========

NET GAIN (LOSS) PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

Net gain (loss) per share .......  $     .005   $     (.01)  $     (.01)   $
                                   ==========   ==========   ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
Bouza, Antonio

From : Bouza, Antonio

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:15 AM

To: Bouza, Antonio

Subject: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards: web updated yesterday

To all Distribution Transformer stakeholders:

The Department of Energy is writing to inform you that the Distribution Transformer web site has been updated

with the Final Rule, the Technical Support Document (TSD) and associated analytical spreadsheets.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/distribution transformers.html

Best Wishes,

Antonio Bouza

Building Technologies Program

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington DC 20585-0121

phone: 202.586.4563

antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov

10/23/2007

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 195

Bouza. Antonio 

From: Bouza, Antonio 

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11: 15 AM 

To: Bouza, Antonio 

Subject: Distribution Transformers Energy Conservation Standards: web updated yesterday 

To all Distribution Transformer stakeholders: 

The Department of Energy is writing to inform you that the Distribution Transformer web site has been updated 

with the Final Rule, the Technical Support Document (TSD) and associated analytical spreadsheets. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercialldistribution_transformers.html 

Best Wishes, 

Antonio Bouza 

Building Technologies Program 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington DC 20585-0121 

phone: 202.586.4563 

antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov 

10/23/2007
PGI 242.7100 General.

(1) A voluntary refund may be solicited (requested by the Government) or unsolicited.

(i) Generally, request voluntary refunds only after determining that no contractual remedy is readily

available to recover the amount sought.

(ii) Acceptance of unsolicited refunds does not prejudice remedies otherwise available to the

Government.

(2) Before soliciting a voluntary refund or accepting an unsolicited one, the contracting officer

should have legal counsel review the contract and related data to—

(i) Confirm that there are no readily available contractual remedies; and

(ii) Advise whether the proposed action would jeopardize or impair the Government's rights.

(3) Request voluntary refunds only when—

(i) The contracting officer concludes that the contractor overcharged under a contract, or

inadequately compensated the Government for the use of Government-owned property, or

inadequately compensated the Government in the disposition of contractor inventory; and

(ii) Retention of the amount in question by the contractor or subcontractor would be contrary to

good conscience and equity.

(4) Do not solicit voluntary refunds without approval of the head of the contracting activity, or as

provided in department/agency regulations.

(5) Voluntary refunds may be requested during or after contract performance.

(6) A contract modification, rather than a check, is the preferred means of effecting a solicited or

unsolicited refund transacted before final payment.

(i) For modifications, adjust the price for the refund and credit the refund to the applicable

appropriation cited in the contract.

(ii) For checks—

(A) Advise the contractor to—

(1) Make the check payable to the agency that awarded the contract;

(2) Forward the check to the contracting officer or, when the contract is assigned to another office

for administration, to that office; and

(3) Include a letter with the check—

(i) Identifying it as a voluntary refund;

(ii) Giving the contract number involved; and
(iii) Where possible, giving the appropriation and account number to be credited; and

(B) Forward the check to the office responsible for control of funds.

Parent topic: PGI 242.71 -VOLUNTARYREFUNDS
#### LANDERS, Respondent, v. PEOPLE’S GAS & ELECTRIC CO. OF OSWEGO, N. Y., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Action by Mary Landers, as administratrix, etc., against the People’s Gas & Electric Company of Oswego, New York.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal (150 N. Y. Supp. 1093) to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 19, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 0954 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 18629

________________ 

### Imperial Air Services, Inc. , et al. , Appellant s ,
vs. 

### Christian Flores , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, David C. Miller , Judge. Houston Roderman , PLLC, and Bart A. Houston (Fort Lauderdale) , for appellant s

. Sasha Bardelas , P.A., and Sasha Bardelas, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See § 48.081(3) (a) , Florida Statutes (2020) ( “ As an alternative to [ the hierarchical service on corporate officers pursuant to section 48. 081(1)

- (2) ] , process may be served on the agent designated by the corporation under s. 48.091. However, if service cannot be made on a registered agent because of f ailure to comply with s. 48.091, service of process shall be permitted on any employee at the corporation's principal place of business or on any employee of the registered agent

. A person attempting to serve process pursuant to this paragraph may serve
th e process on any employee of the registered agent during the first attempt at service even if the registered agent is temporarily absent from his or her office. ”) (emphasis added) ; § 48.091 (2) , Fla. Stat. (2020) (“ Every corporation shall keep the registere d office open from 10 a.m. to 12 noon each day except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, and shall keep one or more registered agents on whom process may be served at the office during these hours. The corporation shall keep a sign posted in the offic e in some conspicuous place designating the name of the corporation and the name of its registered agent on whom process may be served. ”) See also Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr

. Co. , 81 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“An appellant has the burden t o present a record that will overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court's findings.”); 1321 Whitfield,3 LLC v. Silverman , 67 So. 3d 435, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“We are unable to meaningfully review these findings because there is no tra nscript of the hearing on [appellant]’s motion to quash service of process.”) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979)) (“ When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw con clusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theor y. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal. The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error. ”)
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 620 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 134
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 620

                          [Report No. 109-349]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            December 16 (legislative day, December 15), 2005

    Mr. Putnam, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of Friday, December 16, 
2005, or Saturday, December 17, 2005.
                                                 House Calendar No. 134

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 620

                          [Report No. 109-349]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

            December 16 (legislative day, December 15), 2005

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0001070 24-JUN-2014 10:42 AM

SCWC-12-0001070 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I GARY KARAGIANES, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant,

vs. HAWAI ' I OMBUDSMAN, ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA, Respondent/Appellee-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0001070; CIVIL NO. 12-1-2213-08) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.) Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant Gary Karagianes’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 19, 2014, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, June 24, 2014. Gary Karagianes petitioner pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Patricia Ohara Kyle K. Chang for respondent
§ 1120.600 Scope of national policy requirements. National policy requirements, as defined in 2 CFR 1122.2, are requirements: ( a ) That are prescribed by a statute, Executive order, policy guidance issued by the Executive Office of the President, or regulation that specifically refer to grants, cooperative agreements, or financial assistance in general;
( b ) With which a recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement must comply during the period of performance; and
( c ) That are outside subject matter areas covered by administrative requirements, as described in § 1120.500.
# EUR-Lex - 31988D0204 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31988D0204

**88/204/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 February 1988 approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by Luxembourg (Only the French text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 094 , 12/04/1988 P. 0030 - 0030 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 February 1988

approving the plan relating to the examination for hormone residues submitted by Luxembourg

(Only the French text is authentic)

(88/204/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by document of 10 June 1987, Luxembourg sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I (A), Groups I and II to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Luxembourg is hereby approved.

Article 2

Luxembourg shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 1988.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Thian Hoo Tan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Komag, Incorporated;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this report fairly present, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a - 15(e) and 15d - 15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

DATE: May 11, 2004                 BY: /s/ Thian Hoo Tan
                                       ----------------------------

                                   Thian Hoo Tan
                                   Chief Executive Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-12 Incoming PAR Through the Forest Canopy DataThe Boreal Ecosystem-Atmospheric Study (BOREAS) TE-12 (Terrestrial Ecology) team collected photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on shoot geometry, leaf optical properties, leaf water potential, and leaf gas exchange. The data were collected at the Southern Study Area-Old Black Spruce (SSA-OBS) site from 04-Jul-1996 to 25-Jul-1996. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004225Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Walter-Shea, Elizabeth A.*(Nebraska Univ. Lincoln, NE United States)*Mesarch, Mark A.*(Nebraska Univ. Lincoln, NE United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL170NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL170Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL170Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004225.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0268 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0268

**89/268/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by France (Only the French text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0023 - 0023 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by France (Only the French text is authentic) (89/268/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 12 December 1989, France sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by France is hereby approved.

Article 2 France shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Republic of France.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.