alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.2

GRAPHIC

Consent of independent auditors

We consent to the use of our report dated 26 June, 2018, included in this Form 20-F/A Amendment No. 1
to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Brookfield Business Partners L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Quadrant Energy Holdings Pty Ltd, included in the Brookfield Business Partners L.P. Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2017, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/
Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young
Perth, Australia
June 28, 2018



A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                     POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31

                  (Figures and amounts expressed in thousands,
                    except per share and per option amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        2000         1999
                                                                      --------     --------
<S>                                                                   <C>          <C>
A  Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP.........................     $ 71,626     $ 39,517
B  Items adjusting net income....................................     $   (271)           -
C  Net income, US GAAP (A+B).....................................     $ 71,355     $ 39,517
D  Weighted average number of shares outstanding.................       53,420       54,249
E  Options outstanding to purchase equivalent shares.............        3,734        2,944
F  Average exercise price per option.............................     $  64.72     $  70.36
G  Average market price per share................................     $  50.05     $  60.08
H  Period end market price per share.............................     $  50.00     $  53.50
I  Rate of Return available on option proceeds...................        5.00%        5.00%
   CANADIAN GAAP
   Basic earnings per share (A/D)................................     $   1.34     $   0.73
   Fully diluted earnings per share
J  Imputed earnings on options proceeds (E*F*I)..................     $  3,021     $  2,589
   Fully diluted earnings per share ((A+J)/(D+E))................     $   1.31     $   0.73
   UNITED STATES GAAP
   Basic earnings per share (C/D)................................     $   1.34        $0.73
   Fully diluted earnings per share
K  Net additional shares issuable (E-(E*F/G))....................            -            -
   Fully diluted earnings per share (C/(D+K))....................     $   1.34     $   0.73
</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1


Item 6.
-------
                                   Exhibit 11
                                   ----------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                               Three Months       Six Months
                                                                  Ended             Ended
                                                              March 31, 1997    March 31, 1997
                                                            -----------------  ----------------
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS                            


<S>                                                                 <C>              <C>       
Net income                                                           $579,526        $1,172,965
                                                                     ========        ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                          1,635,800         1,644,200


Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect of stock options       35,900            35,900
                                                                       ------            ------

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding    1,671,700         1,680,100
                                                                    =========         =========

Earnings per common share and common share equivalent                   $0.35             $0.70
                                                                        =====             =====

</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20659

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO CESAR AGUILAR-PEREZ

Defendant-Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-851-1

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

March 18, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Cesar Aguilar-Perez appeals his sentence after pleading

guilty to illegally reentering this country, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Aguilar argues that the district court

erred in applying an eight-level increase to his base offense level

for a prior conviction for simple possession of cocaine. He argues

that mere possession is not an aggravated felony under the

Sentencing Guidelines. This argument is foreclosed by our decision
No. 02-20659

-2-

in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-09 (5th Cir.

2002). There we held that simple drug possession is an aggravated

felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Id. at

708. 

Aguilar also argues that the term “aggravated felony” is

unconstitutionally vague and that the rule of lenity should operate

to reduce his sentence. The meaning of “aggravated felony” is

unambiguous; the rule of lenity is not applicable here. See United

States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing United

States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997)).

The district court did not err when it increased Aguilar’s base

offense level by eight levels due to his prior possession

conviction. 

Next, Aguilar argues that the district court erred by not

stating in open court its reasons for sentencing him to 37 months’

imprisonment within a guideline range of 30 to 37 months. When, as

here, the spread of an applicable Guideline range is less than 24

months, the district court is not required to state its reasons for

imposing a sentence at a particular point within the applicable

range. See United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719, 721 (5th Cir.

1991). 

Last, Aguilar argues that the district court erred when it

denied his request for a downward departure. We review a refusal

to depart only if the district court erroneously believed it lacked

the authority to depart. United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346, 359
No. 02-20659

-3-

(5th Cir. 2000). There must be “something in the record [to]

indicate that the district court held such an erroneous belief.”

United States v. Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999).

There is no indication in the record that the court believed it

lacked authority to depart. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
# Den Europæiske Unions L 281/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0634 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | L 281 |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Retsforskrifter | 63. årgang28. august 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0634

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

L 281

Dansk udgave

Retsforskrifter

63. årgang28. august 2020

---

| Indhold | | II   Ikke-lovgivningsmæssige retsakter | Side |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONALE AFTALER |
| | * | Meddelelse om ikrafttrædelsen af aftalen om ophævelse af bilaterale investeringsaftaler mellem Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater | 1 |

Indhold

II   Ikke-lovgivningsmæssige retsakter

Side

INTERNATIONALE AFTALER

*

Meddelelse om ikrafttrædelsen af aftalen om ophævelse af bilaterale investeringsaftaler mellem Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater

1

| DA | De akter, hvis titel er trykt med magre typer, er løbende retsakter inden for rammerne af landbrugspolitikken og har normalt en begrænset gyldighedsperiode.
  Titlen på alle øvrige akter er trykt med fede typer efter en asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

DA

De akter, hvis titel er trykt med magre typer, er løbende retsakter inden for rammerne af landbrugspolitikken og har normalt en begrænset gyldighedsperiode.

Titlen på alle øvrige akter er trykt med fede typer efter en asterisk.

---

II Ikke-lovgivningsmæssige retsakter

INTERNATIONALE AFTALER

| 28.8.2020 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | L 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2020

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

L 281/1

---

Meddelelse om ikrafttrædelsen af aftalen om ophævelse af bilaterale investeringsaftaler mellem Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater

Aftalen om ophævelse af bilaterale investeringsaftaler mellem Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater, undertegnet den 5. maj 2020 i Bruxelles (1), træder i kraft den 29. august 2020 i overensstemmelse med aftalens artikel 16, stk. 1.

1

---

(1)  
  EUT L 169 af 29.5.2020.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                             THE TIMBERLAND COMPANY
                   2004 EXECUTIVE LONG TERM INCENTIVE PROGRAM
                              (effective 12/12/06)


<PAGE>


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                             THE TIMBERLAND COMPANY
                   2004 EXECUTIVE LONG TERM INCENTIVE PROGRAM

      This instrument amends certain terms of The Timberland Company 2004
Executive Long Term Incentive Program. The Program is established under The
Timberland Company 1997 Incentive Plan, and amounts paid under the Program are
intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of
the Internal Revenue Code.

      1. Subsection (a) of Section 8. Award Payment is hereby amended by adding
the following sentence after the third sentence:

            "Notwithstanding anything in this Program document to the contrary,
            the Award payout for the three-year Award Period (1/1/04-12/31/06)
            shall be made on July 10, 2007."

      2. With the exception of the amendment specified above, all other terms
and conditions of this Program document remain in full force and effect.


                                       2
**F o** **o d** **( F** **) /** **N o** **n -** **f o** **o d** **( N** **)**



### Use Site **Formulation Desc A. I. Max App**  **Rate/App Max # Apps /** 

**CC A. I. Max** 

**App Rate/CC**  **Max #**

**Apps / Year**  **A. I. Max App**

**Rate/Year Minimum** 

**Retreatment Interval**  **Minimum**

**Reentry Interval**  **PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo Restrictions**  **DisAllow Geo Restrictions**  **Limitations** Alabama || Arizona || Arkansas || California || Florida || Georgia 

### Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemcial. Each line of data may be a combination of data from one or more pesticide products for a given use site. 

## PRD A **ppendix A**

**(A ctive Ingredient)**  Ingredient: Py rithiobac (078905) Current As Of Date : 13-JAN-2011

F COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) LIQUID .0958 lb / a NS NS NS .1285lb / a 7 d 4 hr H01(60) Alabama || Arizona || Arkansas || California || Florida || Georgia || Kansas || Louisiana || Mississippi || Missouri || New Mexico || North Carolina || Oklahoma || Puerto Rico || South Carolina || Tennessee || Texas || Virginia | No Restrictions C20 || C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CW 1 || CW H || CW L

F COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) WE TTABLE POW DER .0956 lb / a NS NS NS .1275lb / a 7 d 24 hr H01(60) Alabama || Arizona || Arkansas || California || Florida || Georgia || Kansas || Louisiana || Mississippi || Missouri || New Mexico || North Carolina || Oklahoma || Puerto Rico || South Carolina || Tennessee || Texas || Virginia | No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CF1 || CPE || CW H || CW L N KENAF WE TTABLE POW DER .0638 lb / a NS NS NS .1275lb / a NS NS North Carolina || Tennessee | No Restrictions C46



### C (20) Endangered species restriction. C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation system. **Limitation Code Limitation Description** 

Do not graze livestock in treated areas. G (D7) Do not use treated plants for feed or forage. H (01) C (PE) PPE (Protective Personal Equipment) language is found on the label. Please see issues

__ day(s) preharvest interval. C (W 1) Do not contaminate other pesticides, fertilizers, water, food, or feed by storage or disposal C (W H) Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of equipment wash waters. C (W L) Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal. G (03) C (CB) __ months rotational/plant back crop restriction. C (DC) Do not apply when drift is likely to occur. C (F1) Formulation is contained within water soluble bags. C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation system. C (AU) Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal



## NDC = No Dosage Conversion NS = Not Specified H (01) __ day(s) preharvest interval.



### Page 1 of 1
SERVED: MARC H 8, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i ' ARl'MENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS : '^ •'''PORWION 

WASHINGTON, DC ,• •.] OPERATIONS 

IN THE MATTER OF 

M & R HELICOPTER 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPlOSOOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-12n 

U:2 5 

NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

A Prehearing Telephone Conference is scheduled on March 25, 2011, at 3:00 p.m., 

Eastern Time. 

All parties should be prepared to discuss all issues and facts at issue. Each party shall 

ensure that the Judge receives, no later than March 17, 2011, a copy of each document that party 

has provided to the other party but not the Judge. 

Pursuant to Section 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(8), each 

party shall be represented by someone who has authority to negotiate concerning resolution of all 

issues in controversy. 

SO ORDERED. 

Loimie70ft5der 

Chief Admini5tmiveJ.,ca^udge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVIjipiiSt 

ORIGINAL'#iii)'COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration fjir^ I; 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 ;:' : } ' 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, A<jC-^3i||v- i =; 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite itislO ' 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

Respondent's Representative 

2816OrefieldRoad ' > i^ 

Allentown, PA 18104 

TEL: 610-360-3953 

FAX: 

Laura Ponto, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-9863 

FAX: 202-267-5106 ' *' " 

The Honorable Rormie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 ' 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service jn person Oft^yf^i^^ited courier, use the followi% address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence AvWiui^Ml^ Wil^ Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docl^t Cl«1c,lMiCl^0.
## THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUWI-IN. TEXAS 78711 JOHN L. BILJ. AT-rORNEY DE-R*L July 29, 1977

Honorable Bill Stubblefield County Attorney Williamson County Georgetown, Texas 78626 Opinion No. H-1031 Re: Subpoena fees inmisdemeanor cases. Dear Mr. Stubblefield: You have requested our opinion regarding the assessment of subpoena fees inmisdemeanor cases. Article 53.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a schedule of fees to "beallowed the sheriff, or other peace officer performing the same services inmisdemeanor cases, to be taxed against the defendant on conviction." Attorney General Opinion M-184 (1968)held that these were the proper fees tobe assessed inmisdemeanor cases, andwe are fully inagreement with that conclusion. Article 1029 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to felony cases, while article 3933a,v.T.c.S., clearly relates to fees in civil matters. Accordingly, it isour opinion that the assessment of subpoena fees inmisdemeanor cases isgoverned by the provisions of article 53,-01of the Code of Criminal Procedure. SUMMARY The assessment of subpoena fees inmisdemeanor cases isgoverned by the provisions of article 53.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

P. 4256Honorable Bill Stubblefield -Page 2 (H-1031)

DAVID M. KEhfDALL,First Assistant 

# $pgf&&g;man
Opinion CommittLe klw

P. 4251
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00323-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 17th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 017-342305-23

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

OTONIEL HUERTAS, MD, Appellant

V.

BARBARA KADOW, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered “Plaintiff’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or 

Strike Notice of Appeal,” which was filed by appellee on September 11, 2023, and 

“Appellant Otoniel Huertas, M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” which was filed on 

September 21, 2023. We grant the motions and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 28, 2023
#### § 18.1371-1 Election to treat distributions as dividends during certain post-termination transition periods.

A corporation may make an election under section 1371(e) (as amended by section 721(o) of the Act) to treat all distributions of money made during the post-termination transition period described in section 1377(b)(1)(A) as coming out of the corporation's earnings and profits (after earnings and profits have been eliminated, the distributions are applied against and reduce the adjusted basis of the stock). The election may be made only with the consent of each shareholder to whom the corporation makes a distribution (whether or not it is a cash distribution) during such post-termination transition period. Any such election shall be made by the corporation by attaching to its income tax return for the C year in which such post-termination transition period ends a statement which clearly indicates that the corporation elects to have section 1371(e)(1) not apply to all distributions made during such post-termination transition period. The election shall not be effective unless such statement is signed by a person authorized to sign the return required to be filed under section 6012 and by each shareholder required to consent to the election.

[T.D. 7976, 49 FR 35493, Sept. 10, 1984]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-40911

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY ROSSANO MINOTTI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(L-96-CR-23-1)

December 5, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Anthony Rossano Minotti appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion to suppress evidence, his motion to reconsider his

motion to suppress, and his subsequent condi tional guilty-plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately-2-

302 pounds of marijuana. Minotti argues that (1) the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and motion

to reconsider because no reasonable suspicion existed for the stop

of his vehicle; (2) the Government deliberately used perjured

testimony during the suppression hearing; and (3) the district

court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his

motion to reconsider the motion to suppress.

We have reviewed the record and, for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court orally at the suppression

hearing and in writing in denying the motion to reconsider, find no

reversible error in the district court’s denial of the motions.

See United States v. Minotti

, No. L-96-23 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11,

1996). Minotti has not demonstrated that the Government

deliberately introduced perjured testimony during the suppression

hearing. S ee United States v. Bethley

, 973 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.

1 992). Minotti has shown no error in the lack of an evidentiary

hearing on his motion to reconsider or in the consideration of the

Government’s affidavits.

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 16

- 00053

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.M.M. , a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014PA02913

Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating

M.G.’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. Because Appellant is indigent, no costs are taxed in this

appeal.

SIGNED July 20, 2016.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000856143
<NAME>                        BCAM INTERNATIONAL, INC>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              226,000
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        67,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        (56,000)
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    238,000
<PP&E>                              143,000
<DEPRECIATION>                      (60,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,328,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,280,000
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                           4,000
<COMMON>                            408,000
<OTHER-SE>                         (931,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,328,000
<SALES>                              18,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     18,000
<CGS>                                61,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        61,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,057,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  823,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (1,932,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (1,932,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (1,932,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.10)


</TABLE>