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

.....__ ':.'')
·.\

{ ("·:

\.:,. 

# pplyforthe aporoval t 

# 382m61 

# 15t**--·-~--------- ~---**  EVAAIR :&**~**iil**~** AIJIIj}jjf6J



# quivalentAlternative molythe 

# uu 1 

# 1-'a irements for 

# 777-30oER 

# B-16717
u

1/6There are total 15 B777-300ERs for EVAAirways 777 fleet. 14 airplanes were

·delivered by 2009 with one 777 (15th) was not delivered yet. The original

contract delivery month for15th B777-300ER (A/C ordered on July 31st, 2007 · and passenger seats were ordered on December 3,**~JOo)** is in March, 2010.

However, due to Boeing strike (the delivery date is pushed backto April) and delayed passenger seats (the seats manufacture Koito Industries Ltd was under investigation forfalsified data by JCAB. All the production seats are on hold before they complete the re-qualification tests. Many Boeing and Airbus production airplanes were impacted including EVA's 15th 777-300ER). The chance to getthe B-16717 (15th 777) delivered by May 13, 2010 is very slim. The 316 passengers B777-300ER composed of 42 business class seats, 63 premium economy seats and 211 economy seats. All the economy class seats (exceptfront rows) have movable armrestwhile the business and premium economy do not have. As the DOT Part 382.61 requires foreign carriers to comply with the movable armrest rest requirements with airplane delivered after May 13, 2010. We would like to explain and demonstrate how EVA may comply with the DOT Part 382.61 requirement by equivalent alternative.

2/6One Handicap Lavatory (allow wheel Chairaccess) One On board wheel Chair stored at door2 right hand closet

4/6

### ( 

### File Name (*.MPG) Description Demo Person Business-Male 1 Business Class Male 176cm,80kQ Premium Economy-Male1 Premium Economy Male 176cm,80kg Premium Economy-Male2 Premium Economy Male 180cm,11OkQ Premium Economy-Female Premium Ecnnomy Female I 

### 161cm, 56kg Economy-Female Economy Female 161cm, 56kg Dot Lavatory Lavatory Female 161cm, 56kg On Board Wheel Chair Wheel Chair Nil

6/6
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.12

                 CENTRAL FUND OF CANADA LIMITED (THE "COMPANY")

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

OCTOBER 6, 2004

RECONCILIATION WITH UNITED STATES GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 2004 AND 2003
(unaudited - expressed in U.S. dollars)

The interim financial statements of the Company as at July 31, 2004, and for the
three and nine-month periods ended July 31, 2004 and 2003 have been prepared in
accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. These
principles differ from the accounting principles and practices prescribed in the
United States with regard to the presentation of the Company's unrealized
appreciation (depreciation) of investments.

Under Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, the Company records the
unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of its investments as a component of
shareholders' equity, and changes therein are presented in the statement of
shareholders' equity. Under accounting principles generally accepted for
investment companies in the United States, these amounts are reflected in the
statement of loss. As a result, the following additional information is provided
for the benefit of United States shareholders:

The financial information presented in the interim consolidated financial
statements and in this reconciliation to U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles is unaudited. However, in the opinion of management such information
reflects all adjustments, consisting solely of normal recurring adjustments,
which are necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim
periods presented.


<Table>
<Caption>
                                              Nine months ended July 31             Three Months ended July 31
                                               2004                2003               2004               2003
                                          ================    ===============    ===============    ===============
<S>                                   <C>                     <C>                <C>                <C>
Net loss as reported under Canadian   $   (1,696,316)         (1,113,879)        (574,908)          (395,173)
principles

Unrealized appreciation of            $   8,963,354           16,145,355         13,822,086         12,409,611
investments during the year
                                          ----------------    ---------------    ---------------    ---------------

Net income under United States        $   7,267,038           15,031,476         13,247,178         12,014,438
principles

Net income per share under United
States principles:

   Class A shares                     $   0.12                0.38               0.17               0.27
   Common shares                      $   0.12                0.38               0.17               0.27

</Table>

The net assets of the Company are identical under Canadian and United States
generally accepted accounting principles.
May 9, 2014 Secretary Anthony Foxx U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket DOT-OST-2008-0299 Dear Secretary Foxx, \_'

1j

I write to express my concerns with the Department ofTransportation's Tentative Order to terminate the Essential Air Service (EAS) program inEl Centro, California located in Imperial County. I urge youto consider the negative economic impacts that may occur as a result ofthe proposed termination ofthe program. The Imperial County Airport has a tremendous trackrecord ofsurpassing the EAS program requirements put forth bythe government, as they have dramatically exceeded the enplanement minimum infour ofthe last five fiscal years. Unfortunately, in FY 2013, the Imperial County Airport barely fell belowthe ten enplanementthreshold, by reaching 9.5 enplanements for the first time. As you know, the Essential Air Service was putinto place to guarantee that small communities, including those within the Imperial County, continue to be served by certificated air carriers. Over the last several years, Imperial County has experienced the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Our federal government should encourage economic growth, and consider all factors before terminating a much-needed program inthe region. As you prepare the Final Order, I urge you to consider the Imperial Valley's track record over the last three fiscal years, and ask that you consider the void that will be left should the Department ofTransportationultimately decide to terminate the much-needed Essential Air Service program currently in effect at the Imperial County Airport. Thank you for yourtime and consideration ofmyrequest. Sincerely,

Richard A Partridge, Jr. 806 Kindig Avenue Brawley, CA 92227-7768 (760) 985-6961 (Cell)
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1
       
<S>                                         <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       16,943,000         20,205,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 7,036,000          2,900,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    319,000             80,000
<INVENTORY>                                           0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             23,035,000         23,460,000
<PP&E>                                    1,198,039,000        861,244,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               42,444,000         23,450,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,257,332,000        927,897,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       250,080,000        128,456,000
<BONDS>                                               0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0                  0
<PREFERRED>                                           0                  0
<COMMON>                                        382,000            382,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  438,697,000        484,931,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,257,332,000        927,897,000
<SALES>                                               0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             49,022,000         27,528,000
<CGS>                                                 0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                42,591,000         23,159,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           11,316,000          2,970,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,731,000)          1,688,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,731,000)          1,688,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0                  0
<CHANGES>                                  (14,230,000)                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (18,961,000)          1,688,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.49)                .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.49)                .05


<FN>
Certain amounts for the three month period ended March 31, 1998 have been 
reclassified to conform to the 1999 presentation.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### WILLIAMS v. CREIGHTON et al.

No. 3331.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

March 19, 1936.

*196G. Woodson Morris, of San Antonio and Thomas B. Smiley, of Karnes City; for appellant.

D. O. Klingeman, of Karnes City, and Eskridge & Groce, of San Antonio, for ap-pellees.

HIGGINS, Justice

(after stating the case as above).

The record does not affirmatively show the theory upon which the court acted in sustaining the motion of the Creightons. Appellant assumes it was because of the variance between his pleading that he was struck by both cars while the evidence shows he was struck by the Abernathy car only. This is the theory upon which the Creightons seek to sustain the court’s action, and we can conceive of no other reason which would have prompted such action.

The gist of the action was the specific acts of negligence charged against Abernathy and Mrs. Creighton and the resulting. injuries to the plaintiff caused by the collision. Whether one or both of the crashing cars struck the plaintiff is a minor and. unimportant detail in the sequence of events. In the state of the pleadings and evidence it cannot be reasonably assumed the Creightons were in any manner surprised, misled, or prejudiced by the variance between the allegation that plaintiff was struck by both of the cars and the proof that the Abernathy car only struck him. The variance was not fatal. Underwood v. Hall (Mo.App.) 3 S.W.(2d) 1044; Conley v. Lafayette Motor Car Co., 204 Mo.App. 37, 221 S.W. 165; Jones v. Northwestern Auto Supply Co., 93 Mont. 224, 18 P.(2d) 305. The court erred in refusing to submit the case as against Mrs. Creighton, for the evidence abundantly raises issues of negligence upon her part proximately causing the collision.

If we err in the view the variance was not fatal, then we are of the further opinion it was error to refuse the plaintiff leave to file the requested trial amendment. The allowance of such amendments rests in the sound discretion of the court, but it should not be refused when such refusal results in a miscarriage of justice and the granting of same could not operate to surprise or otherwise prejudice the opposing side.

If the amendment sought by plaintiff was a necessary one in order to carry his case to the jury as against the Creightons, it should have been allowed, and, under the facts reflected by this record, the court erred in refusing to permit same.

Appellants complain of the refusal to submit a requested issue as to whethei Abernathy kept a proper lookout. The refusal of such issue presents no error, for the issue was properly submitted in the main charge.

The judgment as to Abernathy is affirmed ; as to the Creightons it is reversed and the cause remanded.
##### 



PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN
WELFARE BENEFIT TRUST
 THIS AGREEMENT PHELPS
DODGE CORPORATION THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN WELFARE BENEFIT TRUST
    ARTICLE ONE: DEFINITIONS




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



ARTICLE TWO: VALUATION AND ALLOCATION
  3




---



##### 



ARTICLE THREE: DISTRIBUTIONS
    ARTICLE FOUR: SEPARATE ACCOUNTS AND INVESTMENT ADVISERS
   4




---



##### 



ARTICLE FIVE: POWERS OF TRUSTEE
   5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



ARTICLE SIX: LIMITATIONS ON POWERS
       7




---



##### 



ARTICLE SEVEN: ACCOUNTS
    ARTICLE EIGHT: TRUSTEE SUCCESSION
  8




---



##### 



ARTICLE NINE: AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
    ARTICLE TEN: MISCELLANEOUS
  9




---



##### 



®
   10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



ARTICLE ELEVEN: GOVERNING LAW
  13




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 PHELPS DODGE CORPORATIONATTEST:
    
    By:
    
    /s/ S. K. Rideout/s/ Catherine R. Hardwick

                     Secretary
    
    Its:
    
    Vice President & Treasurer(CORPORATE SEAL)
 Phelps Dodge Corporation
 /s/ Catherine R. Hardwick

                     SecretaryPhelps Dodge Corporation
 THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANYATTEST:
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Karen Guggis/s/
Robert F. Deathers Jr.
    
    Its:
    
    Vice PresidentAssistant Secretary(CORPORATE SEAL)
 14
1 

### Mears, Gilbert

From: Lois Drumheller <l_drumheller@me.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 10:55 PM

To: Mears, Gilbert Subject: Re: Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Mr. Gilbert Mears Toxics Release Inventory Program Division Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Mears,

I join many others today in asking the EPA to close the TRI loophole. Industries such as oil and gas should be as transparent as other industries when they inventory their materi als of operations. In my field of health care, it is important to view medical data safety sheets. That is how I safely carry out duties as a respiratory t herapist. That is inclusive in asthma education. The public should inventory their environm ent to control asthma. Industr y should become transparent
in this role.

Persons living everywhere need the same transparency withe the discovery of what the oil and gas industry releases into our air, water and land. We are constitutionally guaranteed the right to clean air and water here in Pennsylvania. And so, the public's right to know fall under this same law.

Please continue the EPA's important reporting to the public of toxics release inventory.

Thank you,

Lois Drumheller, RRT, AE-C 200 Scott Drive Monroeville, PA l_drumheller@mac.com
412-374-0870
Exhibit 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Six Months Ended June 30,
                                           ---------------------------------------------
                                                            2001                   2000
                                           ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                      <C>
Net Income                                                 1,550                    959
  Less dividends on preferred stock                          (12)                   (12)
                                           ---------------------------------------------

Net Income available to common
  stockholders                                             1,538                    947

Average shares outstanding - both basic
  and diluted                                            668,360                668,360

Earnings per share - Basic and diluted                     $2.30                  $1.42
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                   Three Months Ended June 30,
                                           ---------------------------------------------
                                                            2001                   2000
                                           ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>                    <C>
Net Income                                                   679                    363
  Less dividends on preferred stock                           (6)                    (6)
                                           ---------------------------------------------

Net Income available to common
  stockholders                                               673                    357

Average shares outstanding - both basic
  and diluted                                            668,360                668,360

Earnings per share - Basic and diluted                     $1.01                  $0.53
</TABLE>






                                       19
# C_2022395EN.01000101.xml

| 14.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10858 – RAFFLES / APG / CMGO / TSH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 395/01)

On 27 September 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10858. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10858. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2527 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount 

of leverage made available to small business investment companies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2018 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 

increase the amount of leverage made available to small 

business investment companies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Invest5 ment Opportunity Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL SBIC LEVERAGE LIMIT INCREASE. 

7 Section 303(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Small Business In8 vestment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2527 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘$150,000,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$175,000,000’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2022281EN.01000801.xml

| 22.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10718 – KINGSPAN / ONDURA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 281/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Kingspan Group Limited (‘Kingspan’, United Kingdom), controlled by Kingspan Group Plc (United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

Kingspan Group Limited (‘Kingspan’, United Kingdom), controlled by Kingspan Group Plc (United Kingdom),

| — | Ondura SAS (‘Ondura’, France), indirectly controlled by Naxicap Partners |
| --- | --- |

—

Ondura SAS (‘Ondura’, France), indirectly controlled by Naxicap Partners

Kingspan will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Ondura.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Kingspan is active in the manufacture of sandwich panels, insulation, light & air solutions, water & energy and data & flooring technology worldwide, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kingspan is active in the manufacture of sandwich panels, insulation, light & air solutions, water & energy and data & flooring technology worldwide,

| — | Ondura is active in the production and supply of lightweight roofing and waterproofing solutions for pitched and flat roofs, transparent and translucent plastic sheets, accessories and complementary products worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ondura is active in the production and supply of lightweight roofing and waterproofing solutions for pitched and flat roofs, transparent and translucent plastic sheets, accessories and complementary products worldwide.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10718 – KINGSPAN / ONDURA

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---