alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. (THE
"PARTNERSHIP") FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. EARNINGS FOR THE
PARTNERSHIP ARE REPORTED BASED ON PARTNERSHIP UNITS, THEREFORE EARNINGS PER 
SHARE DATA IS NOT APPLICABLE AND HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THESE SCHEDULES. NET
LOSS PER PARTNERSHIP UNIT FOR LIMITED PARTNERS, BASED ON 737 UNITS WAS $4(280)K
PER UNIT FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1996. THE NET LOSS FOR THE
GENERAL PARTNER BASED ON ONE UNITE FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 WAS $(650)K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   317
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              175
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       142
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   180
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (206)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      N/A
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      N/A
        

</TABLE>
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 American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 Dr. J. W. Stucki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant
 to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
 of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (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/ Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Chief Executive Officer

 May 17, 2004
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Alfred Kolfus

*Davis W. Ganim,*pro se, the applicant.

Argued May 5

decided May 5, 1964

Davis W. Ganim having applied for permission to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, the matter is remanded to the Superior Court in Fairfield County for the determination of the merits of the application, and to take such action as the circumstances warrant, in the light of *Douglas*v. *California,*372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814, 9 L. Ed. 2d 811.
. - **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNRY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** . jmtw$;ioaInYtle18 Of tll8 hiabryoiTeu8, by Y8a8 Of maaua88* otetwnr p8lnNn#o, 8ad doeiarnco

OS hlokQrl8Ll

v8iW." 8y tlrtuoU thir oorutltoSloaa1 provldoa, noon& qllmtioa

8wt b0 l

8mr.a $5 t&lo

l lYin rtl T0.
Amendment to the Coal City Corporation


    ..

    EXHIBIT
      10.6A

    


    AMENDMENT
      TO THE COAL CITY CORPORATION 

    1995
      STOCK OPTION PLAN 

    


    The
      sixth sentence in the first paragraph of the Plan shall be replaced with the
      following:

    


        “The
      purchase
      price per share to be specified with respect to any non-statutory options
      granted pursuant to this Plan shall be in the discretion of the Board of
      Directors of the Company, and shall also be paid in cash; provided however,
      that
      with respect to non-statutory options granted on or after January 1, 2005,
      the
      purchase price per share shall be at least equal the fair market value of the
      stock on the date of grant. For purposes of stock options granted on or after
      January 1, 2005, the determination of fair market value shall be determined
      in
      accordance with Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 409A and the regulations
      and guidance of general applicability issued thereunder (“Section 409A”) and, in
      the case of incentive stock options, Code Section 422.”

    


    The
      first sentence in the second paragraph of the Plan shall be replaced with the
      following:

    


        “In
      the event
      of any merger, reorganization, consolidation, recapitalization, separation,
      liquidation, stock dividend, split-up, share combination, or other change in
      the
      corporate structure of the Company affecting the shares, such adjustment shall
      be made in the number and class of shares which may be issued under the Plan,
      and in the number and class of and/or price of shares subject to outstanding
      Awards granted under the Plan, as shall be determined to be appropriate and
      equitable by the Committee, to prevent dilution or enlargement of
      rights.”

    


    The
      following sentence shall be added at the end of the last
      paragraph:

    


        “No
      Option
      may be amended, modified, extended or renewed after December 31, 2004 in a
      manner that would subject the Option to Section 409A, unless such Option is
      intended to be subject to Section 409A and such amendment, modification,
      extension or renewal is made in accordance with Section 409A.”

    


    The
      foregoing amendments were adopted on February 22, 2007 but effective as of
      January 1, 2005 unless Section 409A (as defined above) requires an earlier
      or
      later effective date, in which case such earlier or later date shall be the
      effective date.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6046-1 Returns as to organization or reorganization of foreign corporations and as to acquisitions of their stock.

For provisions relating to requirement of returns as to organization or reorganization of foreign corporations and as to acquisitions of their stock, see §§ 1.6046-1 to 1.6046-3, inclusive, of this chapter. (Income Tax Regulations.)
Kurland, Susan (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Susan: 

Fredrick Piccolo <fredrick.piccolo@srq-airport.com> 

Monday, July 23, 2012 12:59 PM 

Kurland, Susan (OST) 

RE: Message from Rick Piccolo "'~, / ,, r"'·' .. .J "' ·<;; ... •.• ) l ··~· _, l -' ~ 

I fully understand the need for transparency and impartiality and thank you for taking the time to respond. It is greatly 

appreciated. All the best. 

Rick 

-----Original Message-----

From: Susan.Kurland@dot.gov [mailto:Susan.Kurland@dot.gov] 

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:55 PM 

To: Fredrick Piccolo 

Subject: RE: Message from Rick Piccolo 

Rick: 

I received your email of July 21, regarding Sarasota's application for a grant from the Department's Small Community Air 

Service Development Program. As I am sure you are aware, I cannot comment on the merits of any application that is 

pending before the Department. I can assure you that the Department will give full and fair consideration to all 

proposals that have been properly filed. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy of your email and this response in Docket-OST-2012-0069 as a contact 

outside the record of this matter. 

I appreciate your interest in the program. 

Susan 

-----Original Message-----

From: Fredrick Piccolo [mailto:fredrick.piccolo@srg-airport.com] 

Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:18 PM 

To: Kurland, Susan (OST) 

Subject: Message from Rick Piccolo 

Susan: 

Hope all is well and that you will make it to the ACI Conference lnCalgary. I thought I would take a moment to remind 

you of the serious challenge SRQ will face in just a few weeks when AirTran leaves and with that takes nearly 400,000 

seats with them or a third of our traffic. I believe we have made a very reasonable and quality application under the 

SCASD program and we are hoping you and your staff will agree. SRQ probably had the most successful implementation 

of a SCASD grant back in 2005 so I promise you we will not let you all down. 

I am hearing that the selections should be made shortly so I thought I would touch base and ask that you give us the 

greatest consideration possible. We will be making our budget decisions with the Board at the end of August and having 

the possibility of mitigating this service loss by receiving the grant would certainly make our budget less difficult and less 

onerous on our employees. 

1 
Thank you for any consideration and I hope you have a nice weekend. 

Best Regards, 

Rick 

Sent from my iPad 

Fredrick J. Piccolo 

2
February 26, 2013 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

EAS@dot.gov 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

.--.·~ .·, L-:,: C1 ~_] 

Chamber of Commerce 

Convention & Vistors Bureau 

302 South Canal Street 

PO Box 910 

Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220 

Phone 575-887-6516 

Fax 575-885-1455 

The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce has proudly supported local businesses since 1892. Our Chamber 

membership consists of hundreds of local businesses, ranging in size from antique shops and barbeque 

stands to major corporations representing the potash, oil and nuclear industries. 

Carlsbad's Chamber of Commerce responsibility is to represent the interests of our organization's 

members and we are urging you to support an Essential Air Service (EAS) Contract for this community 

offering pressurized flights to both Albuquerque and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. It is our 

understanding that Boutique Air offered this combination of services in its application to the 

Department of Transportation. 

Like most individuals and businesses, Carlsbad Chamber members make their travel plans based on 

necessity, but many do not consider a non-pressurized flight across one of the country's most 

mountainous states to be a viable option. The restoration of pressurized service out of Carlsbad would 

have a significant positive impact on our membership. Furthermore, travel options to both Albuquerque 

and DFW Airport would allow members to meet their diverse business needs on both a state and 

national level. 

The Chamber of Commerce also supports the effort to bring more retirees to Carlsbad. Our low costs 

and warm, dry climate make this an attractive destination for Baby Boomers looking for a good place to 

retire. But air service, especially in the event of a needed medical procedure, is one of the first questions 

asked by potential retirees. We believe Boutique's plan would significantly enhance our retirement 

effort. 

Carlsbad is a pretty remote place -you'd probably have to go to Alaska to find a community in the 

country more distant from any professional sports teams, for example, but we're also a community with 

a wide variety of economic needs. On behalf of our members and their economic needs, we respectfully 

ask you to please consider awarding an EAS contract offering pressurized flights to Albuquerque and 

Dallas/Fort Worth to Boutique Air. 

1:i!IAITodd Hyden, I gming Chairman of the Board 

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce 

Email: info@>carlsbadchamber.com • www.carlsbadchamber.com
* 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 limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10029 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN MANUEL PENA Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-59-3
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Pena appeals the 33-month sentence he received following his conviction for conspiracy to utter and possess counterfeit obligations of an organization and for possession of counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 513(a). He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in assessing one criminal history point for his November 2004 criminal trespass conviction as well as one point for his November 2005 conviction for driving with a suspended license. To the extent United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 23, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10029

2 that Pena argues that trial counsel was ineffective i n failing to raise the objection at sentencing, the argument will not be reviewed on direct appeal. See United Statesv. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 929 (2005); see also Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04 (2003). We re view Pena’s argument for plain error, which requires him to show that “(1) therewas an error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” U nited States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005). The court exercises its discretion to correct such error only ifit “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or publicreputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 358-59. As the Government concedes, the inclusion in Pena’s crimi nal history computation of his prior misdemeanor convictions for criminal trespass and driving with a suspended license, for which he received nonprobated sentences of less than 30 days each, was clear or obvious error under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Nevertheless, the error did not affect Pena’s substantial rights because the same sentence could be imposed on remand under the correctly calculated guidelines range. See United States v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir. 1998). Pena’s argument that his sentence must be vacated as “procedurally unreasonable” either ignores or is an attempt to circumvent plain-error review, which review survives Booker and is distinct from reasonableness review. See Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220, 268 (2005); U nited States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 828 (2005). Because Pena has not met his burden of show ing reversible plain error, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 229

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the enrollment

of S. 1004.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. SHUSTER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections

in the enrollment of S. 1004.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill S. 1004,

3 the Secretary of the Senate shall make the following cor4 rections:

5 (1) In section 1106(c), in the text added to sec6 tion 5 of the Act of January 2, 1951—

7 (A) strike ‘‘This section does not prohibit,

8 nor may any State make’’ and insert in lieu

9 thereof ‘‘With respect to a vessel operating in
2

HCON 229 ATH

1 Alaska, this section does not prohibit, nor may

2 the State of Alaska make’’;

3 (B) strike ‘‘except that a State may’’ and

4 insert in lieu thereof ‘‘except that such State

5 may’’; and

6 (C) strike paragraph (2) and insert in lieu

7 thereof the following:

8 ‘‘(2) A voyage referred to in paragraph (1) is a voy9 age that—

10 ‘‘(A) includes a stop in Canada or in a State

11 other than the State of Alaska;

12 ‘‘(B) includes stops in at least 2 different ports

13 situated in the State of Alaska; and

14 ‘‘(C) is of at least 60 hours duration.’’.

15 (2) In section 1113(d), in the text added to sec16 tion 12106 of title 46, United States Code, in sub17 section (e)(1)(E) strike ‘‘section 12102’’ and insert

18 in lieu thereof ‘‘this section’’.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 11 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30 2004
    
    2003A
    
    
    Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    123.3
    
    
    $
    33.1B
    
    
    Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    $
    4.8
    
    
    $
    3.5C
    
    
    Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    128.1
    
    
    $
    36.6D
    
    
    Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    53,433,000
    
    
    
    52,094,000E
    
    
    Net additional shares issuable for diluted
earnings per share calculation
    
    
    682,000
    
    
    
    237,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    $
    2.31
    
    
    $
    0.64Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    $
    2.28
    
    
    $
    0.63UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    $
    2.40
    
    
    $
    0.70Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))
    
    $
    2.37
    
    
    $
    0.70
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03377**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 03377\03377_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03377\03377_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 03377\03377_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03377\03377_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03377\03377_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03377\03377_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03377\03377_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03377\03377_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03377\Supporting Documents\map001.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### § 1.683-1 Applicability of provisions; general rule.

Part I (section 641 and following), subchapter J, chapter 1 of the Code, applies to estates and trusts and to beneficiaries only with respect to taxable years which begin after December 31, 1953, and end after August 16, 1954 the date of enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. In the case of an estate or trust, the date on which a trust is created or amended or on which an estate commences, and the taxable years of beneficiaries, grantors, or decedents concerned are immaterial. This provision applies equally to taxable years of normal and of abbreviated length.
§ 1.691(a)-4 Transfer of right to income in respect of a decedent. ( a ) Section 691(a)(2) provides the rules governing the treatment of income in respect of a decedent (or a prior decedent) in the event a right to receive such income is transferred by the estate or person entitled thereto by bequest, devise, or inheritance, or by reason of the death of the decedent. In general, the transferor must include in his gross income for the taxable period in which the transfer occurs the amount of the consideration, if any, received for the right or the fair market value of the right at the time of the transfer, whichever is greater. Thus, upon a sale of such right by the estate or person entitled to receive it, the fair market value of the right or the amount received upon the sale, whichever is greater, is included in the gross income of the vendor. Similarly, if such right is disposed of by gift, the fair market value of the right at the time of the gift must be included in the gross income of the donor. In the case of a satisfaction of an installment obligation at other than face value, which is likewise considered a transfer under section 691(a)(2), see § 1.691(a)-5.
( b ) If the estate of a decedent or any person transmits the right to income in respect of a decedent to another who would be required by section 691(a)(1) to include such income when received in his gross income, only the transferee will include such income when received in his gross income. In this situation, a transfer within the meaning of section 691(a)(2) has not occurred. This paragraph may be illustrated by the following: ( 1 ) If a person entitled to income in respect of a decedent dies before receiving such income, only his estate or other person entitled to such income by bequest, devise, or inheritance from the latter decedent, or by reason of the death of the latter decedent, must include such amount in gross income when received.
( 2 ) If a right to income in respect of a decedent is transferred by an estate to a specific or residuary legatee, only the specific or residuary legatee must include such income in gross income when received.
( 3 ) If a trust to which is bequeathed a right of a decedent to certain payments of income terminates and transfers the right to a beneficiary, only the beneficiary must include such income in gross income when received.
If the transferee described in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this paragraph transfers his right to receive the amounts in the manner described in paragraph (a) of this section, the principles contained in paragraph (a) are applied to such transfer. On the other hand, if the transferee transmits his right in the manner described in this paragraph, the principles of this paragraph are again applied to such transfer.