alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE
EARNINGS

FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31



|                                                                             |  |      |             |  |      |  |             | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ----------- |  | ---- |  | ----------- | 
|                                                                             |  | 2012 |             |  | 2011 | 
|A  Net income as reported ($ millions)                                       |  |      | 491         |  |      |  | 732         | 
|B  Weighted average number of shares outstanding                             |  |      | 858,788,000 |  |      |  | 854,033,000 | 
|C  Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation |  |      | 17,310,000  |  |      |  | 22,434,000  | 
|                                                                             |  |     
|IFRS                                                                         |  |      |             |  |      |  |             | 
|Basic earnings per share (A/B)                                               |  |      | 0.57        |  |      |  | 0.86        | 
|Diluted earnings per share (A/(B+C))                                         |  |      | 0.56        |  |      |  | 0.84        |
T2 CERT
      0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000 
      0.007  0.007  0.007  0.007  0.007 
      0.040  0.040  0.040  0.040  0.040 
      0.051  0.051  0.051  0.051  0.051 
      0.040  0.040  0.040  0.040  0.040 
      0.075  0.075  0.075  0.075  0.075 
      0.100  0.100  0.100  0.125  0.125 
      0.075  0.075  0.100  0.140  0.140 
      0.125  0.125  0.125  0.160  0.195 
      0.040  0.040  0.050  0.100  0.117 
      0.075  0.075  0.100  0.160  0.195 
      0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000 

      0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000 
      1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700 
      1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700 
      1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700 
      1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700  1.700 
      3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400 
      3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400 
      3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400 
      3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400  3.400 
      1.700  1.700  2.200  4.400  5.000 
      3.400  3.400  4.400  4.400  5.000 
      0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000 

      0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000 
      0.014  0.014  0.014  0.014  0.014 
      0.021  0.021  0.021  0.021  0.021 
      0.029  0.029  0.029  0.029  0.029 
      0.050  0.050  0.050  0.050  0.050 
      0.050  0.050  0.050  0.050  0.050 
      0.140  0.140  0.140  0.140  0.140 
      0.200  0.200  0.200  0.200  0.200 
      0.400  0.400  0.400  0.400  0.400 
      0.200  0.200  0.400  0.400  0.600 
      0.200  0.200  0.400  0.400  0.600 
      0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTurbine blade and vane heat flux sensor development, phase 1Heat flux sensors available for installation in the hot section airfoils of advanced aircraft gas turbine engines were developed. Two heat flux sensors were designed, fabricated, calibrated, and tested. Measurement techniques are compared in an atmospheric pressure combustor rig test. Sensors, embedded thermocouple and the Gordon gauge, were fabricated that met the geometric and fabricability requirements and could withstand the hot section environmental conditions. Calibration data indicate that these sensors yielded repeatable results and have the potential to meet the accuracy goal of measuring local heat flux to within 5%. Thermal cycle tests and thermal soak tests indicated that the sensors are capable of surviving extended periods of exposure to the environment conditions in the turbine. Problems in calibration of the sensors caused by severe non-one dimensional heat flow were encountered. Modifications to the calibration techniques are needed to minimize this problem and proof testing of the sensors in an engine is needed to verify the designs.Document ID19840024719Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsAtkinson, W. H.*(Pratt and Whitney Aircraft East Hartford, CT, United States)*Cyr, M. A.*(Pratt and Whitney Aircraft East Hartford, CT, United States)*Strange, R. R.*(Pratt and Whitney Aircraft East Hartford, CT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1984Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:168297NASA-CR-168297PWA-5914-21Accession Number84N32790Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-23529Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840024719.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 137

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 22, 1995

Mr. DEUTSCH introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

4 (a) EXTENSION OF PERIOD.—Section 106(c) of Pub5 lic Law 104–56 is amended by striking ‘‘December 15,

6 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 1996’’.

7 (b) REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON CERTAIN PRO8 GRAMS.—Public Law 104–56 is amended by striking sec9 tion 113.
2

•HJ 137 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS.

2 (a) COMPENSATION OF FURLOUGHED PERSON3 NEL.—Any officer or employee of the United States Gov4 ernment or of the District of Columbia government who

5 was furloughed for any period as a result of a lapse in

6 appropriations occurring after December 15, 1995, and

7 before the enactment of this joint resolution, shall be com8 pensated at the standard rate of compensation for such

9 officer or employee for such period.

10 (b) RATIFICATION OF OBLIGATIONS.—All obligations

11 that were incurred in anticipation of the appropriations

12 made and authority granted by the enactment of this joint

13 resolution, and that were for the purpose of maintaining

14 the level of activity essential to protect life and property

15 and to bring about the orderly termination of government

16 functions, are hereby ratified and approved if otherwise

17 in accord with the provisions of Public Law 104–56, as

18 amended by this joint resolution.

Æ
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  HQ  Sustainable  Maritime
Industries,  Inc. (the "Company"),  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  ("SEC") on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned  officer  of the  Company  certifies,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:


          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  results  of
               operations of the Company.

     A signed  original  of this  written  statement  has been  provided  to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be  furnished to the SEC or
its staff upon request.


 /s/ Norbert Sporns
-----------------------
Norbert Sporns
Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2004




     This  Certification  of Chief Executive  Officer pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002.  This  exhibit is not "filed" for  purposes of
Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead  furnished as
provided by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Exhibit
      32.2





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 Tax Credit Properties III
      L.P.
      (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Housing Credits Inc., general
      partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., general partner of the
      Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 results of operations of the
                Registrant.









/s/
      Neal
      Ludeke





Neal
      Ludeke


Chief
      Financial Officer of Richman


Housing
      Credits Inc., general partner


of
      Richman Tax Credit Properties III


L.P.,
      General Partner of the Registrant


March
      28,
      2008
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4502]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Primegen Energy Corp.; Order of Suspension of 
Trading

March 1, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
PrimeGen Energy Corporation (``PrimeGen'') because of questions 
regarding the accuracy of publicly disseminated information concerning, 
among other things, the company's current financial condition, 
management, and business operations. PrimeGen is quoted on the Pink 
Sheets under the symbol ``PGNE.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in securities of the 
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on 
March 1, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on March 12, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4502 Filed 3-1-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### ContiMortgage Corp., Respondent, v Felicity DeJesus et al., Defendants. Sprint Equities (NY), Inc., Nonparty Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 400]

*604In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Sprint Equities (NY), Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, J.H.O.), dated January 3, 2005, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied its motion to stay the transfer of a referee’s deed to the purchaser of the subject property at a foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that no contract existed between the plaintiff and the nonparty appellant. The offer of a pay-off agreement by the plaintiff to the nonparty appellant, which was referred to as an “addendum” stated that “this addendum must be signed and returned ... by 10/8/1999 or this agreement is void” (emphasis in original). The nonparty appellant neither obtained the necessary signatures nor returned the “addendum” to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the motion of the nonparty appellant to stay the transfer of the referee’s deed to the purchaser of the subject property at the foreclosure sale. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
[804 NYS2d 57]

#### In the Matter of Barry W. Horowitz (Admitted as Barry Wayne Horowitz), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

October *4,*2005

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(La Trisha A. Wilson*of counsel), for petitioner.

*16No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Barry W Horowitz was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on March 18, 1970, as Barry Wayne Horowitz. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained an office for the practice, of law within the First Judicial Department. Respondent is also admitted to practice law in New Jersey.

By order entered January 6, 2005 (14 AD3d 191 [2005]), this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), based on his failure to cooperate with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee’s investigation, during the last two years, into his neglect of six client matters.

Respondent failed to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation by not answering any of the complaints or appearing before the Committee pursuant to two subpoenas duces tecum issued by this Court. In addition, he engaged in evasive conduct, was delinquent in his registration with the Office of Court Administration and failed to provide OCA with the required notification of his new business telephone number. Moreover, on or about July 23, 2004, the Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended respondent for three months for lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, practicing law while ineligible to do so, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities (180 NJ 520, 853 A2d 230 [2004]). Respondent never informed the Committee of the New Jersey suspension as required.

The Committee now seeks an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), on the ground that he has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the suspension date.

Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted *(see Matter of Szaro,*17 AD3d 50 [2005]).

*17Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.
#### § 31.3302(a)-2 Refund of State contributions.

If, subsequent to the filing of the return, a refund is made by a State to the taxpayer of any part of his contribution credited against the tax, the taxpayer is required to advise the district director of the date and amount of such refund and the reason therefor, and to pay the tax, if any, due as a result of such refund, together with interest from the date when the tax was due.
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Borne v Commission

(Case T-274/99) (1)

(2006/C 310/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

----

(1)OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

----
§ 31.3503-1 Tax under chapter 21 or 22 paid under wrong chapter. If, for any period, an amount is paid as tax— ( a ) Under chapter 21 or corresponding provisions of prior law by a person who is not liable for tax for such period under such chapter or prior law, but who is liable for tax for such period under chapter 22 or corresponding provisions of prior law, or
( b ) Under chapter 22 or corresponding provisions of prior law by a person who is not liable for tax for such period under such chapter or prior law, but who is liable for tax for such period under chapter 21 or corresponding provisions of prior law,
the amount so paid shall be credited against the tax for which such person is liable and the balance, if any, shall be refunded. Each claim for refund or credit under this section shall be made on Form 843 and in accordance with § 31.6402(a)-2 and the applicable provisions of section 6402(a) and the regulations thereunder in Part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7381

RONALD JENKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-01245-JFA)

Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000855663
<NAME> JORDAN AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         488,727
<SECURITIES>                                   234,894
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,960
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               977,484
<PP&E>                                         202,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,608,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          288,626
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        10,411
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,279,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,608,633
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,073
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (491,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (491,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (491,414)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
www.gpo.gov

### §277d–10. Nogales Sanitation Project; operation by Commission; division of costs; contribution by Nogales, Arizona

The Secretary of State is authorized, notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to the conditions provided in this section and section 277d–11 of this title, to enter into an agreement with the appropriate official or officials of the United Mexican States for the operation and maintenance by the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, of the Nogales sanitation project, located at Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, heretofore constructed by the said Commission, which agreement shall contain such provisions relating to a division between the two Governments of the costs of such operation and maintenance, or of the work involved therein, as may be recommended by said Commission and approved by the Government of Mexico and by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government of the United States: *Provided*, That no such agreement shall be entered into until the governing body of the city of Nogales, Arizona, has given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of State that it will, so long as such agreement remains in force, contribute an equitable proportion, as determined by the United States section of said Commission, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, of the costs of such operation and maintenance allocated to the United States.

(July 27, 1953, ch. 242, §1, 67 Stat. 195.)

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in section 277d–11 of this title.