alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0188 

Focus Ready Draft 2/19/2009 Standard Review Report 05/19/2009 

ENGINEER: Arnold \ CPW 

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

Gen Eqpt:

Respirator:

Health Effects:

TLV/PEL:

CRSS : 

Chemical Name: 

S-H20: g/L @ 

VP: 0.0E+0 torr @ 

MW: %<500 %<1000 

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info: 

Neat: Mfg: Proc/Form: 

Use:
Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns) (02/10/2009): 

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: 

Migration: Unknown based on SAT 

Migration to groundwater: Unknown 

PBT rating: P3BT2 PBT indicated as 3,U,2. 

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation 

Eco: 1 No releases to Water 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2C 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: 

None. 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No 
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0188 

Number of Sites/ Location:

Days/yr: 

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

Basis:

Inhalation:
Dermal: 
STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

PMN: 09-0188 

Use - 

Number of Sites/ Location:

unknown site(s) 

Days/yr:

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may 

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same 

medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY 

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:

Basis:

Inhalation:
Dermal:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 6/30/00 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                      2,468,537               7,228,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,468,537               7,228,443
<CGS>                                        2,355,512               6,881,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,355,512               6,881,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,558                 219,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   529                   3,159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,719                  30,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,748                  97,393
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,988                  37,519
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,760                  59,874
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,760                  59,874
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .43                    1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39                    1.16


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 11

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN
INC.

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30


(Figures and amounts expressed in millions,
except per share amounts)

|  |  |                                                                               |  |      |            |      |  |   |            |  
|- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---------- | ---- |  | - | ---------- | -
|  |  |                                                                               |  | 2002 |            | 2001
|  |  |                                                                               |  |      |            |     
|A |  | Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP                                         |  | $    | 24.7       |      |  | $ | 105.5      |  
|B |  | Items adjusting net income                                                    |  | $    | 3.7        |      |  | $ | (9.6       | )
|C |  | Net income, US GAAP                                                           |  | $    | 28.4       |      |  | $ | 95.9       |  
|D |  | Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                 |  |      | 51,989,000 |      |  |   | 51,862,000 |  
|E |  | Net additional shares issuable for diluted
    earnings per share calculation |  |      | 315,000    |      |  |   | 330,000    |  
|  |  | CANADIAN GAAP                                                                 |  |      |            |      |  |   |            |  
|  |  | Basic earnings per share (A/D)                                                |  | $    | 0.47       |      |  | $ | 2.04       |  
|  |  | Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))                                          |  | $    | 0.47       |      |  | $ | 2.02       |  
|  |  | UNITED STATES GAAP                                                            |  |      |            |      |  |   |            |  
|  |  | Basic earnings per share (C/D)                                                |  | $    | 0.55       |      |  | $ | 1.85       |  
|  |  | Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))                                          |  | $    | 0.54       |      |  | $ | 1.84       |
##### 



2006
    
    
    2005A
    
    Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    125.5
    
    
    $
    131.3B
    
    Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    $
    1.8
    
    
    $
    (9.2
    )C
    
    Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    127.3
    
    
    $
    122.1D
    
    Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    103,641,000
    
    111,110,000E
    
    Net additional shares issuable for diluted
earnings per share calculation
    2,184,000
    
    3,155,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    $
    1.21
    
    
    $
    1.18Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    $
    1.19
    
    
    $
    1.15UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    $
    1.23
    
    
    $
    1.10Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))
    
    $
    1.20
    
    
    $
    1.07
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, who is carrying out the functions of chief financial officer for Brookfield Business Partners L.P.
(the "Partnership") pursuant to a Master Services Agreement, dated June 1, 2016, among Brookfield Asset Management Inc., the Partnership, Brookfield Business L.P. and
others, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (i) the annual report of the Partnership on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the "Annual Report") 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 in the Annual Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Dated:
June 28, 2018

|                                                                                       |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ CRAIG LAURIE Name: Craig Laurie
Title:Chief Financial Officer, Brookfield Business |  | 
|Partners L.P.                                                                          |  | 

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATION


     To my  knowledge,  this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2003 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the  information  contained in this Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of Tri -County Financial Corporation.



                        By:/s/ Michael L. Middleton
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Michael L. Middleton
                           President and Chief Executive Officer



                        By:/s/ William J. Pasenelli
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           William J. Pasenelli
                           Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer


May 15, 2003
#### § 1.996-6 Effectively connected income.

In the case of a shareholder who is a nonresident alien individual or a foreign corporation, trust, or estate, amounts taxable as dividends by reason of the application of § 1.995-4 (relating to gain on disposition of stock in a DISC), amounts treated under § 1.996-1 as distributed out of accumulated DISC income, and amounts deemed distributed under § 1.995-2(a) (1) through (4) shall be treated as gains and distributions which are effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business conducted through a permanent establishment of such shareholder within the United States, and shall be subject to tax in accordance with the provisions of section 871(b) and the regulations thereunder in the case of nonresident alien individuals, trusts, or estates, or section 882 and the regulations thereunder in the case of foreign corporations. In no case, however shall other income of such shareholder be taxable as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business through a permanent establishment in the United States solely because of the application of this section.

[T.D. 7324, 39 FR 35124, Sept. 30, 1974]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 258 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 688
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 258

 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 19 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Heflin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

           September 28 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                Reported by Mr. Biden, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

    Resolved, That, as a supplement to S. Res. 108 of the 103d 
Congress, the bill S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard 
Kanehl of Mobile, Alabama.'' now pending in the Senate, together with 
all the accompanying papers, is referred to the chief judge of the 
United States Court of Federal Claims. The chief judge shall proceed 
with the same in accordance with the provisions of sections 1492 and 
2509 of title 28, United States Code, notwithstanding the bar of any 
statute of limitations, laches, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or 
bar of sovereign immunity, and report thereon to the Senate, at the 
earliest practicable date, giving such findings of fact and conclusions 
thereon as shall be sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature and 
character of the demand as a claim, legal or equitable, against the 
United States or a gratuity and the amount, if any, legally or 
equitably due to the claimants from the United States. In complying 
with this resolution, the Court of Federal Claims is requested to 
consider the records of any previous trial of the issues in this case, 
including the records of Merchants National Bank v. United States (7 
Cl. Ct. 1; 1984).
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 688

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              S. RES. 258

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 To refer S. 974 entitled ``A bill for the relief of Richard Kanehl of 
  Mobile, Alabama.'' to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

           September 28 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6679
OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, a/k/a Michael A. Stokes, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-6680
OPHEILA AZRIEL DE’LONTA, a/k/a Michael A. Stokes, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; M. V. SMITH, Doctor; R.HULBERT, Doctor; C. J. ANGLIKER, Doctor; DOCTOR WRAY; DOCTOR SWETTER, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-642-7) Submitted: August 15, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. No. 00-6679 dismissed and No. 00-6680 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Opheila Azriel De’Lonta, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; George W. Wooten, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia; HeatherMarie Kofron, WRIGHT, ROBINSON, OSTHIMER & TATUM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Opheila Azriel De’Lonta appeals the denial of her motions forappointment of counsel and preliminary injunctive relief. In appeal No. 00-6679, De’Lonta challenges the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, see28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. Simmons , 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987). In appeal No. 00-6680, De’Lonta challenges the district court’s order denying her amended motion for preliminary injunctive relief. We find that the court did not abuse its discretion. See Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp. , 952 F.2d 802, 814-15 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See De’Lonta v. Angelone, No. CA-99-642-7 (W.D. Va. May 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 00-6679 - DISMISSED No. 00-6680 - AFFIRMED
DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ 08023

March 9, 2010

Document Control Office

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

November and December 2009 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office:

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA 

analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a 

monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for 

samples taken during November and December 2009. We will continue to send you the reports 

each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015.

Sincerely, 

Karen L. Pinder

SHE Consultant – Environmental

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures
Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
Amend #1, Florida Choice Bank Officers' and Employees' Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10.42A 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FLORIDA CHOICE BANK 
 OFFICERS’ AND EMPLOYEES’ STOCK OPTION PLAN

 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE FLORIDA CHOICE BANK OFFICERS’ AND
EMPLOYEES’ STOCK OPTION PLAN (the “Amendment”) is made as of the 1st day of May, 2002. 
 WITNESSETH THAT: 
 WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors and the shareholders of Florida Choice Bank (the “Bank”) have authorized, adopted and approved an Officers’ and Employees’ Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Bank desires to amend the Plan in certain respects. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Defined Terms. All terms used in this
Amendment which are defined in the Plan shall have the meanings specified in the Plan, unless specifically defined herein. 
 2. Amendment
of Section 4.1. Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be amended to provide that, subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.3 of the Plan, the number of shares of Stock which may be issued and sold under the Plan
pursuant to Stock Option Agreements shall not exceed Sixty Six Thousand Forty Four (66,044) shares. 
 3. Effect of Amendment.
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by its officer thereunto duly authorized, all as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	FLORIDA CHOICE BANK
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kenneth E. LaRoe
		 	Kenneth E. LaRoe
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0Three-year average of expected number of days above the standard

Banning Palm Springs Redlands One - hour ozone standard Note: A 1 - hour ozone design value is the expected number of days per year above the standard, averaged over three consecutive years. Th e revoked 1 - hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations ab ove 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. All data may not be valid due to data completeness issues, and exceptional event data that have been concurred by EPA have been excluded from design value calculations. X - axis labels represent the most recent year of a consecutive three - year period. Sources: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (October 24, 2012), http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html#8, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR - 2010 - title40 - vol2/pdf/CFR - 2010 - title40 - vol2 - part50 - appH.pdf . 

# 1 - HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES ADJACENT TO MORONGO TRIBAL LANDS (1990 - 2011)0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25

0.3 0.35CONCENTRATION (ppm)

Banning Palm Springs Redlands 1 - Hour Ozone Standard Note: Exceptional event data that have been concurred by EPA have been excluded. The revoked 1 - hour ozone concentration standard is 0.12 parts per million (ppm) . Sources: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (October 24, 2012), http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html#8, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR - 2010 - title40 - vol2/pdf/CFR - 2010 - title40 - vol2 - part50 - appH.pdf . 

# 1 - HOUR OZONE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO MORONGO TRIBAL LANDS (1990 - 2011)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JC/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE PILAR PEREZ-LOPEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50170

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00603-RTB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Pilar Perez-Lopez appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed

following revocation of the supervised release term he was serving following a

guilty-plea conviction to being a deported alien found in the United States. We

FILED

NOV 18 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JC/Research 2 09-50170

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Lopez contends the district court committed procedural error by: 

(1) relying on clearly erroneous facts; (2) imposing a sentence without providing

an explanation sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review; and (3) failing to

consider the revocation factors in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a). These

contentions are belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Perez-Lopez also contends the district court committed procedural error by

failing to calculate the sentencing guidelines range and by ignoring the parsimony

principle. Perez-Lopez has not demonstrated that any error affected his substantial

rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).

Finally, Perez-Lopez contends the supervised release revocation procedures

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental,

445 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2006). We reject Perez-Lopez’s contention that

Huerta-Pimental is no longer good law in light of Cunningham v. California,

549 U.S. 270 (2007). See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.

2008).

AFFIRMED.