alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 95 Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The following table reflects citations, orders and notices issued to us by the United States Mine Safety and Health Administration (the
MSHA) for the quarter ended September 30, 2017 (the Reporting Period) and contains certain additional information as required by Section 1503(a) and Item 104 of Regulation
S-K of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including information regarding mining-related fatalities, proposed assessments from the MSHA and legal actions (Legal Actions) before
the United States Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), an independent adjudicative agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review of legal disputes arising under the United States Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (the Act). Included below is the
information required by Section 1503(a) with respect to our facilities at Aurora, North Carolina (MSHA Identification Number 31-00212) (Aurora), Weeping Water, Nebraska (MSHA Identification
Number 25-00554) (Weeping Water) and White Springs, Florida (MSHA Identification Number 08-00798) (White Springs) for the Reporting Period:  Aurora

WeepingWater

WhiteSprings(a)

the total number of alleged violations of mandatory health or safety standards that could significantly or substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard under Section 104 of
the Act for which a citation was received from the MSHA

0

0

0(b)

the total number of orders issued under Section 104(b) of the Act

0

0

0(c)

the total number of citations received and orders issued under Section 104(d) of the Act for alleged unwarrantable failures of the Company to comply with mandatory health or safety standards

0

0

0(d)

the total number of alleged flagrant violations under Section 110(b)(2) of the Act

0

0

0(e)

the total number of imminent danger orders issued under Section 107(a) of the Act

0

0

0(f)

the total value (in dollars) of proposed assessments from the MSHA under the Act

$    0

$    0

$    0(g)

the total number of mining-related fatalities

0

0

0(h)

received notice from the MSHA of a pattern of violations under Section 104(e) of the Act

No

No

No(i)

received notice from the MSHA of potential to have a pattern of violations under Section 104(e) of the Act

No

No

No(j)

the total number of Legal Actions pending as of the last day of the Reporting Period

0

1

0(k)

Legal Actions initiated during the Reporting Period

0

0

0(l)

Legal Actions resolved during the Reporting Period

0

1

0
Amendment No. 2 To the Assurant, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 
 ASSURANT, INC. 
 2004 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this
“Amendment”) to the Assurant, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended, (the “Plan”) is made this 7th day of December, 2006. 
 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Assurant, Inc. (the “Company”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the definition of the term
“Fair Market Value”. 
 1. The Plan is hereby amended by deleting the definition of “Fair Market Value” in
Section 2.1, sub-section (p) of the Plan in its entirety and by substituting in lieu thereof the following: 
 “Fair Market Value”, on any day, means (i) if the Stock is listed on a securities exchange or is traded over the Nasdaq National Market, the closing sales price on such date, or (ii) if the Stock is not listed on a
securities exchange or traded over the Nasdaq National Market, the mean between the bid and offered prices as quoted by Nasdaq for such date, provided that if it is determined that the fair market value is not properly reflected by such Nasdaq
quotations, Fair Market Value will be determined by such other method as the Committee determines in good faith to be reasonable. 
 Except
as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Plan, as previously amended, shall be and remain unchanged and the Plan as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day and year first above written.

  

			
	ASSURANT, INC.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:
```

[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Notices]               
[Page 56999]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17se10-60]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

 
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: Effective Date: September 17, 2010.

ADDRESS: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, 
Washington, DC 20004-2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at 
(202) 694-7041 or by e-mail at debbieb@dnfsb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(1) through (5) requires 
each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review 
boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of 
the senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the 
higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In 
addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance 
bonuses and pay increases.
    The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the 
members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice 
are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. The following persons 
comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:

Christopher E. Aiello, Director of Human Resources, Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation
David M. Capozzi, Director of Technical and Information Services, 
United States Access Board
DeDe Greene, Executive Officer, Civil Rights Division, Department of 
Justice
Christopher W. Warner, General Counsel, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board

    Dated: September 10, 2010.
Brian Grosner,
Chairman, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-23180 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 30, 2019

No. 04

- 17

- 00640

- CR

William Boyd PORTER

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 201 6CR4455

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting:

Karen Angelini, Justice (not participating)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing and the motion is hereby

DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

          - [Docket ID: USAF-2009-0049]

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice to Delete a System of Records.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

      ( print page 39680)    

# DATES:

This proposed action will be effective without further notice on September 8, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCPPI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ben Swilley at (703) 696-6648.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                

The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of recorded systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

Dated: July 23, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

Deletion:

## F038 AFMC A

### SYSTEM NAME:

Manhour Accounting System (MAS). (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793).

### REASON:

The records are no longer maintained in this system. Therefore, this notice should be deleted.

[FR Doc. E9-18901 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
39549, 39552.

#### FRASHIER v. STATE (two cases).

Jordan, Judge.

Floyd and Vernon Frashier under indictments charging them with the offense of larceny from the house were tried jointly in the Superior Court of Walker County *187and convicted of said offense. Their motions for new trial on the general grounds only were denied and they excepted, bringing the cases to this court for review. *Held:*

Decided June 20, 1962.

*D. L. Lomenick, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Earl B. Self, Solicitor General,*contra.

1. The recent possession of stolen goods, unexplained to the satisfaction of the jury, is a circumstance from which the jury may infer guilt of the party in whose possession the goods are found, and whether the jury should draw such inference or whether the defendant satisfactorily accounts for the possession of said stolen goods, is a matter entirely for the jury. *Stewart v. State, 17*Ga. App. 827 (88 SE 715) ; *Kinard v. State,*19 Ga. App. 624 (2) (91 SE 941); *Hobbs v. State,*38 Ga. App. 205 (143 SE 509); *Craig v. State,*91 Ga. App. 418 (2) (85 SE2d 777). Said determination of the jury will not be interfered with by this court on appeal unless it is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or any reasonable theory deducible therefrom. *Jordan v. State,*9 Ga. App. 578 (3) (71 SE 875); *Minor v. State,*51 Ga. App. 204 (179 SE 850).

2. The evidence adduced on the trial of these cases, which disclosed that the articles named in the indictments were stolen on the night of April 22, 1961, and found in the possession of the defendants on the following morning, was sufficient to authorize the defendants’ conviction; and since the jury by the verdict rendered found the defendants’ explanation of their possession of the goods to be unsatisfactory (a contrary finding not being demanded by the evidence), the judgment under review must be affirmed.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,737,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,447,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,747,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         382,385
<DEPRECIATION>                                 244,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,401,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                        19,137
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,938,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,401,758
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,622,583
<CGS>                                        5,666,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,432)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,432)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.002)
        

</TABLE>
39682.

#### CROWE, by Next Friend v. WHITE.

Decided September 21, 1962

Rehearing denied October 3, 1962.

*Stow & Andrews, Frank B. Stow, Bobert E. Andrews,*for plaintiff in error.

*Telford, Wayne & Smith, Joe K. Telford,*contra.

*705Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The case as laid by plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the owner of the automobile that struck him on the occasion under investigation; that the driver of the automobile at the time was the grandson of the defendant; that he lived with defendant and was a part of his family; that his grandson had his permission to use the automobile on the occasion when plaintiff was injured. The defendant, when called for the purpose of cross-examination testified that these facts were true. Also, under the pleadings, the plaintiff was a pedestrian at the time he was injured and was attempting to cross U. S. Highway 23, at an intersection on said highway; that there was a stop signal at the intersection but that the driver of defendant’s automobile failed to stop at said signal and as a result thereof struck the plaintiff causing him the serious injuries for which he sues.

The acts of negligence alleged by plaintiff were that the automobile was operated at the time in a manner so as to endanger the life and limb of other persons; that the driver thereof failed to have the automobile under immediate control, and that the driver failed to stop said automobile in obedience to the red stop signal facing him at the intersection. Under the record in this case there was some evidence adduced to support each of the grounds of negligence alleged. “A nonsuit will be refused if there is even slight evidence to support the plaintiff’s case. *Clark v. Bandy,*[196 Ga. 546, 27 SE2d 17]; *Barnett v. Terry,*42 Ga. 283 (3); *Elrod v. McConnell,*170 Ga. 892 (154 SE 449).” *Ellison v. Evans,*85 Ga. App. 292, 295 (69 SE2d 94). “If the plaintiff’s evidence, construed most favorably to him, makes out a prima facie case, a nonsuit should be refused. *Brown v. A. C. L. R. Co.,*79 Ga. App. 56 (52 SE2d 660); *Henry v. Roberts,*140 Ga. 477 (79 SE 115).” *Ellison v. Evans,*supra. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit and the case must be reversed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
 2010
    
    
    2009(1)A     Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    1,323.9
    
    
    
    741.5B     Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    (62.3
    )
    
    
    1.0C     Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    1,261.6
    
    
    
    742.5D     Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    296,492,000
    
    
    
    295,467,000E     Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    8,324,000
    
    
    
    8,335,000F     Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (US GAAP)
    
    
    8,311,000
    
    
    
    8,334,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    4.47
    
    
    
    2.51Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    4.34
    
    
    
    2.44UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    4.26
    
    
    
    2.51Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    4.14
    
    
    
    2.44
 
 (1)
    
    Corrected as described in Note 18 in Part I, Item I
###### 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.

#### § 301.6425-1 Adjustment of overpayment of estimated income tax by corporation.

For regulations under section 6425, see §§ 1.6425-1 to 1.6425-3, inclusive, of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).

[T.D. 7059, 35 FR 14548, Sept. 17, 1970]
----

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 November 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission

(Case F-69/06) (1)

(2006/C 326/178)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 35.

----
##### 



Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31
 2008
    
    
    2007A Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    566.0
    
    
    
    198.0B Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    (19.7
    )
    
    
    2.2C Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    546.3
    
    
    
    200.2D Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    315,662,000
    
    
    
    314,896,000E Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    10,419,000
    
    
    
    6,877,000F Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (US GAAP)
    
    
    10,411,000
    
    
    
    6,877,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    1.79
    
    
    
    0.63Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    1.74
    
    
    
    0.62UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    1.73
    
    
    
    0.64Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    1.68
    
    
    
    0.62
# Úřední věstník C 311A/19.

| | ISSN 1725-5163 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 311A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 4919. prosince 2006 |

ISSN 1725-5163

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 311A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 4919. prosince 2006

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámení |
| | Rada |
| 2006/C 311A/1 | Vyhlášení výběrového řízení na místo administrátora – poradce v audiovizuální oblasti (Ref. CONS/AD/046) | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámení

Rada

2006/C 311A/1

Vyhlášení výběrového řízení na místo administrátora – poradce v audiovizuální oblasti (Ref. CONS/AD/046)

1

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

III Oznámení

Rada

| 19.12.2006 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 311/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 311/1

---

VYHLÁŠENÍ VÝBĚROVÉHO ŘÍZENÍ NA MÍSTO ADMINISTRÁTORA – PORADCE V AUDIOVIZUÁLNÍ OBLASTI

(Ref. CONS/AD/046)

(2006/C 311 A/01)

Generální sekretariát Rady Evropské unie má v úmyslu obsadit volné místo v odboru 1 tisková služba generálního ředitelství F (tisk, komunikace, protokol).

Úspěšnému uchazeči bude nabídnuta smlouva dočasného zaměstnance v platové třídě AD10 na období čtyř let (s šestiměsíční zkušební lhůtou), kterou bude možno obnovit pouze jednou na dobu maximálně dvou let.

Další informace o volném místě a o podání přihlášky najdete na internetových stránkách Rady v oddílu nabídka zaměstnání na této adrese:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/concours

Termín uzávěrky pro podání přihlášky je dne 19. ledna 2007, rozhodující je datum na otisku poštovního razítka.

---