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



Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
 2007
    
    
    2006A Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    726.8
    
    
    
    445.8B Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    10.5
    
    
    
    7.7C Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    737.3
    
    
    
    453.5D Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    315,444,000
    
    
    
    311,344,000E Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    8,136,000
    
    
    
    6,457,000F Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (US GAAP)
    
    
    8,119,000
    
    
    
    6,457,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    2.30
    
    
    
    1.43Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    2.25
    
    
    
    1.40UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    2.34
    
    
    
    1.46Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    2.28
    
    
    
    1.43
#### § 1.801-2 Taxable years affected.

Section 1.801-1 is applicable only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and before January 1, 1955, and all references to sections of part I, subchapter L, chapter 1 of the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, before amendments. Sections 1.801-3 through 1.801-6 are applicable only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1957, and all references to sections of part I, subchapter L, chapter 1 of the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended by the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 112). Section 1.801-8 is applicable only to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1961, and all references to sections of part I, subchapter L, chapter 1 of the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended by the Life Insurance Company Income Tax Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 112) and section 3 of the Act of October 23, 1962 (76 Stat. 1134).

[T.D. 6886, 31 FR 8681, June 23, 1966, as amended by T.D. 9911, 85 FR 64392, Oct. 13, 2020]
Greetings,

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft assessment for 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene. We are pleased that EPA decided to assess this TMB isomer in addition to the draft assessment for the other two isomers, which EPA has already shared with the interagency reviewers. One of our main comments on the earlier TMB assessment was that it would be helpful to also evaluate 1,2,3- TMB. Having toxicity
values for all three isomers will make it easier to evaluate the risk from mixtures of TMB.

We do not have any specific comments on the draft 1,2,3-TMB assessment. We appreciate that the materials sent out for review were focused just on the one isomer as it made it easy to read. However, we feel that for peer review, and the final document, it would be best have one document that covers all three isomers. We anticipate that this is EPA’ s plan, and recognize that there will need to be some changes to formatting to both drafts in order to make this possible.

Thanks again for the opportunity to review and comment on this assessment.

Stiven Foster Deputy Associate Director of Chemical Regulations Council on Environmental Quality

1,2,3-TMB Draft Assessment Foster, Stiven

to: IRISInterAgency 05/24/2012 02:54 PM Cc: "Patel, Manisha", Norman Birchfield

F rom: "Foster, Stiven"

T o: IRISInterAgency

C c: "Patel, Manisha" , Norman
B irchfield



### 5/24/2012
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1907]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PR08-30-000, PR07-12-003, PR07-12-004]


Enterprise Texas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Motion for Bifurcation 
of Issues and Deferral of Review of Rate Proposal

January 22, 2009.
    On January 14, 2009, Enterprise Texas Pipeline, LLC (Enterprise 
Texas) filed a request to defer review of its September 30, 2008 
Petition for Rate Approval. It also requests that the Commission move 
forward on a separate track to complete its review of and ruling on all 
of the matters related to the Enterprise Texas Statement of Operating 
Conditions (SOC) that have been raised by intervenors in the above-
captioned dockets and that are the subject of certain data requests.
    The request states that Enterprise Texas has experienced a delay in 
placing the Sherman Lateral fully into service for the performance of 
services pursuant to Natural Gas Policy Act section 311 and it does not 
anticipate charging the proposed incremental rate until some time in 
the future. Enterprise Texas commits that it will not charge its 
proposed incremental rate for any interim service on the Sherman 
Lateral, but rather will only charge a rate no greater than the 
currently effective rate for the Enterprise Texas system that was 
approved in Docket No. PR07-12.
    Notice is hereby given that answers to the motion are due no later 
than January 29, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1907 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 212 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 212

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that a commemorative postage stamp 
         should be issued to honor coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 10 (legislative day, May 2), 1994

Mr. Heflin (for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Pryor, 
    and Mr. Stevens) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that a commemorative postage stamp 
         should be issued to honor coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant.

Whereas eleven years after his death, Paul ``Bear'' Bryant retains the record of 
        being the most successful coach in Division 1-A college football 
        history;
Whereas Paul ``Bear'' Bryant's accomplishments were a source of great pride to 
        the University of Alabama and the Nation;
Whereas Paul ``Bear'' Bryant's example has profoundly influenced many 
        professional and collegiate coaches and players; and
Whereas Paul ``Bear'' Bryant is a modern hero and legend in the South: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Citizens' 
Stamp Advisory Committee of the United States Postal Service should 
recommend to the Postmaster General that a postage stamp be issued 
honoring coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant.

                                 <all>
```
§ 157.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund. ( a ) *In general.* Each tax return or claim for refund for tax under section 5891 of the Internal Revenue Code prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by § 1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in § 1.6109-2 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78462, Dec. 22, 2008]
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 184

To condemn the massacre in Hebron, and urge all parties in the Middle

East peace process to renew energy to achieve a just peace.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. PELL, Mr. METZENBAUM, and Mrs.

FEINSTEIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To condemn the massacre in Hebron, and urge all parties

in the Middle East peace process to renew energy to

achieve a just peace.

Whereas immediately after Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn last

September, extremists on both sides vowed that the Declaration of Principles signed that day would never come

to fruition;

Whereas, since the signing of the Declaration of Principles on

September 13, 1993, many innocent people have been the

victims of vicious acts of terrorism;

Whereas the massacre that took place on February 25, 1994

at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron was an act of
2

SRES 184 ATS

murderous terrorism directed against innocent persons at

prayer;

Whereas the purpose of these acts of terror was to derail the

Middle East peace talks;

Whereas as diplomats have inched their way towards fulfilling

each article of the Declaration, extremists have just as

painstakingly plotted disruptions, preyed on innocents

and haphazardly killed and maimed people;

Whereas if the chances for peace in the Middle East are

harmed by the act of terror in Hebron or other acts of

terrorism, then these acts will have achieved their purpose; and

Whereas, to prevent terrorism from achieving its purpose, all

parties must now redouble their efforts to gain success in

those talks: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate expresses its condemnation

2 of the massacre perpetrated in Hebron as violative of all

3 standards of civilized human behavior, and as violative of

4 the policies of the government of Israel and every other

5 government that has spoken on this atrocity.

6 SEC. 2. The Senate condemns all acts of terror in7 tended to disrupt the peace process or for any other pur8 pose.

9 SEC. 3. The Senate commends the government of Is10 rael for its strong condemnation of the Hebron killings,

11 for reaching out to the victims’ families, and for taking

12 swift and appropriate action to respond to the threat

13 posed by extremists.
3

SRES 184 ATS

1 SEC. 4. The Senate urges all parties and others in2 volved in the Middle East peace talks to apply renewed

3 energy to achieve the prompt and just conclusion which

4 is the only way to obtain long term security for all people

5 in the area and as the best way in the short term to deny

6 terror any measure of success.

Æ
MEMORANDUM

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 

 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 

From: Hillary Ward, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Subject: Stakeholder Meetings 2014 

Hillary Ward of EPA/SPPD met with the following attendees to discuss their public 

comments on the rulemakings for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission 

Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). 

Date: August 12, 2014 

Location: Waste Management, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 590, Washington, DC

Attendees: 

Hillary Ward, EPA/SPPD

David Cozzie, EPA/SPPD

Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Amy Banister, Waste Management

Niki Wuestenberg, Republic Services

Anne Germain, National Waste & Recycling Association

Date: September 24, 2014 

Location: U.S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Room 500C, Research Triangle Park, NC

Attendees: 

Hillary Ward, EPA/SPPD

David Cozzie, EPA/SPPD

Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Amy Banister, Waste Management

Niki Wuestenberg, Republic Services

Anne Germain, National Waste & Recycling Association

Topics: These organizations’ public comments on the proposed New Source Performance 

Standards and the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the MSW Emission 

Guidelines. 

 1
#### § 20.6075-1 Returns; time for filing estate tax return.

The estate tax return required by section 6018 must be filed on or before the due date. The due date is the date on or before which the return is required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 6075(a) or the last day of the period covered by an extension of time as provided in § 20.6081-1. The due date, for a decedent dying after December 31, 1970, is, unless an extension of time for filing has been obtained, the day of the ninth calendar month after the decedent's death numerically corresponding to the day of the calendar month on which death occurred. However, if there is no numerically corresponding day in the ninth month, the last day of the ninth month is the due date. For example, if the decedent dies on July 31, 2000, the estate tax return and tax payment must be made on or before April 30, 2001. When the due date falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the due date for filing the return is the next succeeding day that is not Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. For the definition of a legal holiday, see section 7503 and § 301.7503-1 of this chapter. As to additions to the tax in the case of failure to file the return or pay the tax within the prescribed time, see section 6651 and § 301.6651-1 of this chapter. For rules with respect to the right to elect to have the property valued as of a date or dates subsequent to the decedent's death, see section 2032 and § 20.2032-1, and section 7502 and § 301.7502-1 of this chapter. This section applies to estates of decedents dying after August 16, 1954.

[T.D. 8957, 66 FR 38546, July 25, 2001]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,602

EX PARTE STANLEY BLACKWELL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 920951 IN THE 147 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of sexual assault

of a child and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in December 1992.

Applicant contends that this sentence should have discharged. He alleges that the State

negligently failed to issue a capias when the mandate in his appeal issued and as a result, he has been

out of custody for over sixteen years. Applicant was released on appellate bond after his conviction. 

The mandate for his appeal was issued April 26, 1995, but due to a mistake in the Travis County
District Clerk’s office, no capias was ever issued. Applicant attempted to turn himself into the

Travis County Sheriff’s office in May and July 1995, but was advised both times that he could not

be taken into custody until a capias was issued. During the time of his release, Applicant was

serving a deferred adjudication community supervision sentence in an unrelated case. He was

complying with the conditions of that supervision, including reporting to his supervising officer. He

successfully completed the supervision for that other sentence in 2002.

Applicant filed a prior 11.07 application in this cause in 2002, alleging both ineffective

assistance of counsel grounds and the grounds that he currently raises in this application. He was

not in custody at that time. That application was denied without written order by this Court in 2002. 

Applicant has a new factual basis for this application because capias finally issued in this cause and

he was arrested for this cause on March 12, 2011.

This Court recently granted relief to an applicant who had been erroneously allowed to stay

out on appeal bond through no fault of his own. Ex parte Thiles, 333 S.W.3d 148 (Tex. Crim. App.

2011). We held that Thiles was entitled to relief because he did not know the mandate had issued

in his case and that he therefore did not violate any conditions of his appellate bond. Applicant also

did not violate any conditions of his appellate bond and in fact tried to turn himself in twice and was

turned away. Applicant was improperly out of custody on appeal bond through no fault of his own. 

He was not attempting to conceal himself, and the State made no efforts to secure Applicant so that

he may begin to serve his sentence.

Relief is granted. Applicant is to receive time credit in this cause from the time the mandate

issued in his appeal to the present. With the granting of this time credit, he has served this sentence

in full and shall be immediately discharged from custody.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional
Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: August 10, 2011

Do Not Publish
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary DAVIS, a/k/a Papa, a/k/a Gary Thomas, a/k/a Andre Thomas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4560.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Mark P. Foster, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, D. Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary Davis was convicted after a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999). Davis argues his sentence of 328 months imprisonment violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We affirm Davis’ conviction and sentence.

Because Davis failed to raise an *Apprendi*claim in the district court, our review is for plain error. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). In order to demonstrate plain error, Davis must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. *Olano,*507 U.S. at 732. If Davis can satisfy these requirements, we should not exercise our discretion to correct the error “unless the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” *Olano,*507 U.S. at 732 (alteration in original) (quoting *United States v. Young,*470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). Davis’ indictment did not allege a threshold drug quantity; therefore, he could only be properly sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999 *&*Supp.2001). We find Davis’ sentence of 328 months imprisonment is error, and the error was plain. We need not decide, however, whether the error affected Davis’ substantial rights. Where the evidence is overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted as to the error, we will decline to correct *608it. *See United States v. Cotton,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1781, — L.Ed.2d - (2002). We have reviewed the record and conclude the evidence of drug quantity, as derived from the stipulation in Davis’ plea agreement, was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted. Accordingly, because the drug quantity attributable to Davis was sufficient to invoke the enhanced sentencing provisions of § 841(b)(1)(A), we decline to correct his sentence.

We affirm Davis’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the judicial process.

*AFFIRMED.*
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.

§ 301.6226(e)-1 Jurisdictional requirement for bringing an action in District Court or United States Court of Federal Claims. ( a ) *Amount to be deposited* — ( 1 ) *In general.* The jurisdictional amount that the filing partner (or, in the case of a petition filed by a 5-percent group, each member of the group, or, for civil actions beginning on or after April 2, 2002, in the case of a petition filed by a pass-thru partner, each indirect partner holding an interest through the pass-thru partner) shall deposit is the amount by which the tax liability of the partner would be increased if the treatment of the partnership items on the partner's return were made consistent with the treatment of partnership items on the partnership return, as adjusted by the notice of final partnership administrative adjustment. The partner is not required to pay other outstanding liabilities in order to deposit a jurisdictional amount.
( 2 ) *Example.* The provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be illustrated by the following example: Example. A files a petition for readjustment of partnership items in the United States Court of Federal Claims. A's tax liability would be increased by $4,000 if partnership items on A's return were conformed to the partnership return, as adjusted by the notice of final partnership administrative adjustment. A has an unpaid liability of $10,000 attributable to nonpartnership items. A is required to deposit $4,000 in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.
( b ) *Deposit taken into account in computing interest.* The amount deposited is treated as a payment of tax for purposes of chapter 67 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to interest).
( c ) *Deposit generally not treated as payment of tax.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an amount deposited under section 6226(e) shall not be treated as a payment of tax. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service may proceed against the depositor for a deficiency based on nonpartnership items without regard to this deposit.
( d ) *Amount deposited may be applied against assessment.* If the restriction on assessment provided under section 6225(a) lapses with respect to a deficiency attributable to partnership items for a partnership taxable year while an amount is on deposit under section 6226(e) in connection with a petition relating to those items, the Internal Revenue Service may apply the amount deposited against any such deficiency that is assessed.
( e ) *Effective date.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, this section is applicable to civil actions beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For civil actions beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6226(e)-1T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50554, Oct. 4, 2001]