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

                                SPIRE CORPORATION

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 (LOSS) For Years Ended December 31, 1999, 1998
                                    and 1997

<TABLE><CAPTION>
                                                                               1999             1998            1997
                                                                          ---------------- --------------- ----------------
<S>                                                                       <C>                <C>                <C>
NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE - (BASIC)

Net earnings (loss)                                                          $ 5,366,695     $(3,811,272)       $1,667,235
                                                                          ================ =============== ================

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                           3,246,112       3,235,271         3,086,326
                                                                          ================ =============== ================

Net earnings (loss) per common share                                            $   1.65        $  (1.18)          $  0.54
                                                                          ================ =============== ================

NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE - (DILUTED)

Net earnings (loss)                                                          $ 5,366,695     $(3,811,272)       $1,667,235
                                                                          ================ =============== ================

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                           3,276,112       3,235,271         3,086,326

Add net additional common shares upon exercise of common stock options            28,601              --           131,141
                                                                          ---------------- --------------- ----------------

Adjusted average common shares outstanding                                     3,274,713       3,235,271         3,217,467
                                                                          ================ =============== ================

Net earnings (loss) per common share                                            $   1.64        $  (1.18)         $   0.52
                                                                          ================ =============== ================

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                               87,058
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     87,058
<PP&E>                                                3,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                        3,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       87,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             17,888
<OTHER-SE>                                           69,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         87,561
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      4,089
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     12,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (8,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (8,177)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (8,177)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.00



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 10(s)**

Summary of 2005Performance Metrics under the Company’s Executive Annual Performance Incentive Plan 

        TheCompany has established the Executive Annual Performance Incentive Plan, a copy of whichis included as an exhibit to the Company’s Form 10-K. Participants are selected eachyear based on recommendations of the Executive Management Committee and approved by theManagement Development/Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. A participant maybe awarded a cash bonus for the successful performance of his or her business unit, andmay also be awarded a cash bonus based on consolidated group performance. 

        For2005, a participant’s performance will be measured based on the following metrics:revenue, pre-tax profit, and net operating working capital, with varying weights assignedto each metric. Bonuses are payable based on the achievement of specific performance goalsfor each metric; provided, however, that the pre-tax profit metric must be met in orderfor any bonus to be paid. Threshold, target and maximum bonuses, equal to a percentage ofthe participant’s base salary, are payable upon achievement of a minimum percentage(generally 50%), 100% or up to 200%, respectively, of all performance goals. For 2005, thepercentage of base salary that may be paid as bonus to the Company’s executiveofficers ranges from 30% to 100%. For 2005, the following named executive officers areeligible to receive a bonus of up to the following percentages of their respective basesalary: Skinner — 100%; Schafer — 85%; Tomczak — 65%; Lavers — 65%;and Terlep — 98%.
EXHIBIT 21

McDATA Subsidiaries



|                                             |  |                        |  |          |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -------- |  | 
|Name                                         |  | Place of Incorporation |  | Date     |  | 
|McDATA Services Corporation                  |  | Minnesota              |  | 7/11/79  |  | 
|SANavigator, Inc.                            |  | Delaware               |  | 9/7/01   |  | 
|Nishan Systems, Inc.                         |  | California             |  | 8/19/03  |  | 
|Sanera Systems, Inc.                         |  | Delaware               |  | 8/21/03  |  | 
|Articulent, Inc.                             |  | Delaware               |  | 3/8/89   |  | 
|Inrange Technologies Corporation             |  | Delaware               |  | 4/19/77  |  | 
|Inrange Global Consulting, Inc.              |  | Delaware               |  | 9/5/01   |  | 
|Inrange Technologies Canada, Inc.            |  | Canada                 |  | 5/24/00  |  | 
|McDATA International ltd.                    |  | UK                     |  | 2/1/03   |  | 
|McDATA Technology Systems Ltd                |  | Ireland                |  | 8/11/99  |  | 
|McDATA Technology Systems GmbH               |  | Germany                |  | 11/6/00  |  | 
|McDATA GmbH                                  |  | Germany                |  | 7/13/98  |  | 
|McDATA Deutschland GmbH                      |  | Germany                |  | 2/10/95  |  | 
|McDATA France S.A.S.                         |  | France                 |  | 2/8/95   |  | 
|McDATA Italia Srl.                           |  | Italy                  |  | 3/1/93   |  | 
|McDATA Belgium S.A.                          |  | Belgium                |  | 6/30/00  |  | 
|McDATA A.G.                                  |  | Switzerland            |  | 6/30/00  |  | 
|McDATA Hong Kong Limited                     |  | Hong Kong              |  | 9/12/01  |  | 
|McDATA Japan K.K.                            |  | Japan                  |  | 6/21/00  |  | 
|McDATA Technology Systems Singapore Pte Ltd. |  | Singapore              |  | 3/24/02  |  | 
|McDATA Australia Pty Limited                 |  | Australia              |  | 11/19/01 |  |
Carroll,

June, 1896.

#### Bryant & *a. v.*Tamworth.

A finding by the county commissioners adverse to the removal of gates across a highway will not be disturbed if the laying out was legal, or the highway has become such by user.

If gates maintained across a highway constitute an unlawful obstruction, the remedy is by indictment under P. S., c. 77, *s.*8.

The laying out of a highway by selectmen is the exercise of a judicial power conferred by statute, and cannot be collaterally impeached.

Petition, to the county commissioners, for the removal of gates and bars across a highway in Tamworth, laid out by the selectmen, subject to gates, June 5,1852. The petition alleged that the gates and bars had become unnecessary and inexpedient, that the selectmen, upon petition to remove the gates, refused to do so, and requested the commissioners to lay out the road as an open highway. Upon due notice and hearing, the commissioners reported that in their opinion there was no occasion to remove the gates and that the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The plaintiffs introduced a copy of the record of the laying out in 1852, and claimed that it was illegal as to the laying out of the highway subject to gates and that the commissioners should order them removed. The court ordered judgment on the report of the commissioners, and the plaintiffs excepted.

*Josiah H. Hobbs,*for the plaintiffs.

*Scioall W. Abbott,*for the defendants.

Blodgett, J.

The plaintiffs have no case. If the laying out of the highway in 1852, subject to gates, was legal, no' error appears in the finding of the commissioners that there is no occasion to remove the gates ; and if the laying out was illegal, the finding is in no wise affected, because the highway long since *484became a legal one by user. P. S., *e. 67, s.*1. But suppose it did not, the plaintiffs stand no better; for if it be assumed, in accordance with their contention, that the imposition of the gates was illegal and that their maintenance has.since been and now is an unlawful obstruction to the travel on the highway, their remedy is by indictment. P. S., *c. 77, s.*8. Then, again, it is beyond doubt or disputation that the laying of the highway by the selectmen, in the exercise of a judicial power conferred on them by the statute of highways, cannot be impeached or set aside in this collateral proceeding. *Spaulding*v. *Groton, ante, p. 77,*and authorities cited.

*Exception overruled.*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Christopher Michael Fejes

, * From the 42nd District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 25338A

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00347

- CR * March 26, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered Christopher Michael Fejes ’s motion to dismiss his

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance

with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 23.3







Rotterdam,
      5 March 2010Re:
            Consent Chemship
      B.V.




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms
S-8 (File No. 333-61895 and File No. 333-55970) and Forms S-3 (File No.
333-140968, File No. 333-140969 and File No. 333-140974) of our report dated
February 12, 2009 relating to the financial statements for consolidation
purposes of Chemship B.V., which appears in this Form 10-K of Ampal – American
Israel Corporation.




Yours faithfully,





MAZARS PAARDEKOOPER HOFFMANACCOUNTANTS
N.V.







O. Opzitter RA
sep 8 2010 REC-)IFT12-76

Page 1 of 2

i VISION
EGAL, PROCESSING FUATIONS [As of: September 08, 2010
PUBLICATION SCH Received: August 13, 2010
B Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 08, 2010

Tracking No. 80b3066f
[Comments Due: August 16, 2010}
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0809
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Robert Milton Copp
Address:
1138 Harrison Ave.
Panama City, FL, 32401
Email: skip@knology.net

General Comment

August 13, 2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991—-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status
as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules for determining whether an insurance
plan will be granted “grandfathered” status are a serious concern to everyone covered by these
rules. If an insurance plan is "grandfathered" it may determine whether it must comply with
certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including the non-
discrimination provision. The non-discrimination provision ensures that insurance plans cannot
discriminate against providers with respect to participation and coverage if the providers are
acting within their scope of practice. The population should be free to make choices based on

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/ContentV iewer?objectld=0900006480b306... 9/8/2010


Page 2 of 2

what is the best “health tool” for a given job. If the point of this legislation is to change health care
coverage for the better — which it must be — then it is incumbent on you to actually make those
changes. If insurance companies are doing the right thing, there should be no nced to
"grandfather" anyone. Let's keep the non-compliant insurance firms in line with the spirit and
letter of the changes.

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether
a group health plan is “in or out.” The decisions the federal government makes today will
determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create a
sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means
getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and to
deliver on its promises, in order to retain their support.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation.

Robert M. Copp

https://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/ContentV iewer?objectlId=0900006480b306... 9/8/2010
#### Barham *et al. v.*Weems *et al.*

Lumpkin, J.

1. “The alternative road law contained in the Political Code, when duly adopted for a county, only repeals therein so much of the old road law as is inconsistent with it. Section 520 of the Political Code is not inconsistent with such alternative road law, and must be *705complied with before a new public road can be lawfully established in a county wherein such alternative road law is operative.” *Howell*v. *Commissioners of Chattooga County,*118 *Ga.*635 (45 S. E. 241). It follows that when a new public road has been established in accordance with section 520 of the Political Code, such procedure is not objectionable, whether or not the alternative road law has been adopted in the county where the road runs.

Submitted June 24,

Decided December 21, 1907.

Certiorari. Before Judge Reagan. Henry superior court. October 18, 1906.

*Brown & Broiun,*for plaintiffs. *G. W. Bryan,*for defendants.

2. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment of the ordinary, and there was no error in overruling the certiorari. •

3, Questions argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error as grounds of reversal, but not appearing to have been made or passed on in the , court below,.will not be decided.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Holden, J., who did not preside.*
#### Daniel Sanford, Respondent, v. Joseph Crocheron, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Daniels, J.;

Brady, J., dissenting.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18786]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 23, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
39 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2023-247, CP2023-250.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-18786 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
https://fdms.erulemaking.net/.../component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480b3962e&Comment=true[8/25/2010 9:40:36 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 25, 2010

Received: August 24, 2010

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80b3962e

Comments Due: August 27, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0016

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits,

Rescissions, and Patient Protections

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0016-0001

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Preexisting Condition Exclusions, Lifetime and Annual Limits,

Rescissions, and Patient Protections

Document: EBSA-2010-0016-DRAFT-0008

Comment on FR Doc # N/A

Submitter Information

Name: Anne Wright

Address:

1085 Brighton Avenue

Portland, ME, 04102

Email: awright@holdenagency.com

Phone: 207-775-3793

Organization: Holden Agency / EBS

General Comment

I would like to request clarification of the meaning of "annual maximum" for essential benefits, as described in the

PPACA. Once essential benefits are defined by HHS, are plans limited from imposing an annual limit (expressed in

terms of a dollar amount) on any of the essential benefits individually? Or does the “annual maximum” limit refer

to an aggregate of all essential benefits together? For example, if we assume that "habilitative / rehabilitative

services" are part of a plan's essential benefits, and if we further assume that physical therapy is included in the

definition of rehabilitative benefits, may a plan still impose an annual limit (for example, $5,000) on the dollar

amount of benefits that will be paid for physical therapy services, as long as the aggregate annual maximum

under the plan meets the guidelines listed in the PPACA? Or must that dollar limit be no less than the maximum

allowed under PPACA ($750,000 in 2011, $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013, unlimited in 2014), for each

individual benefit covered under the plan? Based on some of the comments in the federal register, which describe

a small number of insured Americans bumping up against their annual maximum benefit each year, it would seem

that the limit applies to the aggregate of all benefits - but it is not clear in the regs, and there has been a great

deal of confusion on this issue on the part of insurers, commenters, and consultants. Clarification on this point

would be welcome. Thank you.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.85 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil