alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                             CHOICECARE CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS     NINE MONTHS
                                                        ENDED           ENDED
                                                     SEPTEMBER 30,   SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          1996           1996
                                                     -------------   -------------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>        
Net income                                            $     1,437     $     3,142
                                                      ===========     ===========

Shares used in calculation of earnings per share:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding        14,852,944      14,196,223
     Dilutive effect of assumed exercise of
          stock options                                 1,132,764         487,833
                                                      -----------     -----------
     Weighted average common and common
          equivalent shares outstanding                15,985,708      14,684,056
                                                      ===========     ===========

Earnings per common and common equivalent share -
     primary and fully diluted                        $       .09     $       .21
                                                      ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4767
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. CORY A. GARRIES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00009-F) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cory A. Garries pled guilty to a criminal information charging him with sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2242 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), and was sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment and a life term of supervised release. In this appeal, Garries contests a four-level adjustment for aggravated sexual abuse applied by the district court under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A3.1(b)(1) (2006), and also argues that his life term of supervised release exceeded the statutory maximum. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. In his plea agreement, Garries waived appellate review of “any issues that relate to the establishment of the advisory guideline range . . . .” Our review of the record discloses that the district court advised him about the waiver provision at the guilty plea hearing, and that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. General , 278 F.3d 389, 399-401 (4th Cir. 2002). Further, under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(k) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007), for a violation of § 2242, “the authorized term of supervised release . . . is any term of years not less than five, or life.” We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court, but dismiss that portion of the appeal in which Garries contests the calculation of his advisory guideline range. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART ; DISMISSED IN PART
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffKnowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG

# Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG-1122, Revision 3)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1122, Revision 3 – Final Report (PDF - 5.44 MB)
        - NUREG-1122 Knowledge and Ability Catalog (Microsoft Excel - 489 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2020**Date Published:** September 2020

**Prepared by:**B. Tindell and S. Cushing

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This catalog lists important knowledge and abilities for reactor operators and senior reactor operators at pressurized water reactors. Examiners and facility licensees use this catalog along with NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," to develop examinations that sample the topics listed under Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 55, "Operators' Licenses." The catalog is organized into six major sections: Organization of the Catalog, Generic Knowledge and Abilities, Plant Systems, Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions, Components, and Theory.

Revision 3 of the catalog includes the following changes: (1) the clarification of numerous knowledge and ability statements and the elimination of duplicate statements, (2) the addition of the integrated control and control room ventilation systems and the incorporation of the station air system into the instrument air system, (3) the addition of reactor coolant system leak to the abnormal plant evolutions, (4) retention of applicable knowledge and ability statements that were moved to other sections with the deletion of the station air system, reactor coolant pump malfunctions (Loss of Reactor Coolant Flow), Combustion Engineering reactor coolant system overcooling, and Combustion Engineering natural circulation operations, (5) a complete rewrite of the vendor-specific emergency plant and abnormal plant evolutions sections, (6) a rerating of importance ratings for Plant Systems and Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions sections, (7) the reduction to a single importance rating for knowledge and ability statements that only relate to one license level, and (8) the addition of a Basic Energy Concepts section to Thermodynamics Theory.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, August 02, 2023
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Centro Equestro da Leziria Grande LDA against Bundesamt für Finanzen

(Case C-345/04)

(2004/C 273/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court (Germany)) of 26 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Centro Equestro da Leziria Grande LDA against Bundesamt für Finanzen (Federal Tax Office) on the following question:

Is it contrary to Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities if a person with restricted tax liability in Germany who is a national of a Member State may claim repayment of tax deducted at source on his income in Germany only when the operating expenses that have a direct economic connection to that income are higher than half of the income?

----
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 19 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01726]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

January 26, 2015.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, January 29, 2015.

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street 
entrance).

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: It was determined by a unanimous vote of the 
Commissioners that the Commission consider and act upon the following 
in closed session: Brody Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor, Docket Nos. 
WEVA 2014-82-R, et al. (Issues include whether to grant or deny the 
Secretary of Labor's Emergency Motion for Stay of ALJ's Order 
Dismissing Pattern-of-Violations Notice.) This is the earliest 
practicable time that notice of the closed meeting could be provided.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-01726 Filed 1-27-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                        SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

        This First Amendment to Separate Agreement and Release (this
"Amendment"), is entered into as of March 29, 2001, between Jiri Nechleba
("Employee") and INTERLINQ Software Corporation, a Washington corporation
("INTERLINQ").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

        WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, Employee and INTERLINQ entered into that
certain Separation Agreement and Release agreement regarding the termination of
Employee's employment with INTERLINQ (the "Separation Agreement");

        WHEREAS, Employee and INTERLINQ desire to extend the date of Employee's
termination under the Separation Agreement;

                              A G R E E M E N T S:

        NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and
for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which
are hereby acknowledged, INTERLINQ and Employee hereby agree to amend the
Separation Agreement as follows:

1.      AMENDMENT OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT

        Recital A of the Separation Agreement is amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:

                      A. Employee has been employed by INTERLINQ, and Employee's
                      employment at INTERLINQ will terminate on April 15, 2001,
                      or earlier if requested by INTERLINQ's Board of Directors.

        The first sentence of Section 1 of the Separation Agreement is amended
and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

                      Employee's employment with INTERLINQ will end on April 15,
                      2001 (the "Employment Termination Date").

<PAGE>   2

        All other terms and provisions of the Separation Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

2.      CONSENT

        By signing in the space below, Employee and INTERLINQ hereby consent to
the above amendments to the Separation Agreement.

3.      COUNTERPARTS

        This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to
Separation Agreement and Release as of the date first above written.

                                             EMPLOYEE:



                                             /s/ Jiri Nechleba
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Jiri Nechleba



                                             INTERLINQ Software Corporation


                                             By: /s/ Robert Gallagher
                                                --------------------------------
                                             Name:   Robert Gallagher
                                             Its:    Chairman



                                      -2-
#### Bogda, Appellant, vs. Wilbur and another, Respondents.

*March 7*

April *2, 1929.*

*511The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Kittell, Joseph, Young & Everson*of Green Bay, and for the respondents on that of *Robert A. Kaftcm*of Green Bay.

Stevens, J.

The case turns upon the question of which party had the burden of proof. Had this been a straight action upon a promissory note, the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover upon the proof offered by him. But the plaintiff did not base his cause of action upon a simple promissory note. He pleaded facts which showed that his cause of action arose out of a conditional sales contract, and that more than fifty per cent, of the contract price had been paid.

Where at least fifty per cent, of the purchase price has been paid, the seller under a conditional sales contract must, after retaking the goods, sell the same at public auction. Sec. 122.19, Stats. If there is no such resale, “the seller may retain the goods as his own property without obligation to account to the buyer, ... and the buyer shall be discharged of all obligation.” Sec. 122.23, Stats.

Here the plaintiff based his action upon the claim that a balance was due after he had “duly foreclosed” his conditional sales contract and applied the proceeds of such foreclosure upon the amount due. Unless the sales contract was “duly foreclosed” as required by the statutes cited above, the plaintiff had the right to take and hold the automobile, *512but no right to recover any deficiency or balance due from the defendants. The defendants by their answers put plaintiff to his proof on the question of whether in his foreclosure he had complied with the statutes relating to conditional sales contracts, — a burden which the plaintiff did not meet. In the absence of proof of compliance with the provisions of the conditional sales act, the plaintiff had no right to recover any deficiency from the defendants.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership.








Date:
      May 9, 2008
            /s/ Stanley K. TangerStanley
      K. Tanger
              Chief
      Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of the
      Registrant
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7122** 

OWEN D. LEAVITT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. CARLTON B. JOYNER , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 00038

- FDW )

Submitted : December 19, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Owen D. Leavitt , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Owen D. Leavitt seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order s d ismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2 254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion . The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issu e 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 Leavitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Leavitt’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMIS SE D
Prepared by MerrillDirect





Exhibit
10(b)


Amendment
to

TCF Financial 1995 Incentive Stock Program

(Effective
for awards made on or after January 1, 2001)


[Amendment authorizing Committee to redefine Change in
Control for

vesting and authorizing the Committee to require a “double trigger”

(both Change in Control and termination of employment) for vesting.]


A.


In Section 16 of the Plan, the definition of Change in
Control is amended to add the following at the end thereof:


Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may provide
a different definition of Change in Control in the written agreement
establishing the terms and conditions of any award, provided that any such
definition is not more generous to the grantee under such agreement than the
foregoing definition.


B.


The last sentence of Section 17 is amended to read as
follows:


Provided, however, that the Committee may provide in the
written agreement establishing the terms and conditions of any award that
vesting upon a Change in Control is contingent upon termination of employment (whether
voluntary or involuntary, with or without cause, as the Committee may provide)
of the grantee within one year after the Change in Control.
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests2022

# Recent FOIA Requests - March 2022

This page presents a chronological listing of the subject and reference number of each Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Request submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during January 2022. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.
i

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - January
          - February
          - March
          - April
          - May
          - June
          - July
          - August
          - September
          - October
          - November
          - December

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 5, 2022
Exhibit 10.76
LOAN AGREEMENT

 

 

 

Exodus Communications, Inc agrees to extend a loan to BeverlyA. Brown ("Brown") pursuant to the terms and conditions describedbelow:

Loan Amount:	$400,000

Availability:	$200,000 beginning November 1, 1999

		$100,000 beginning April 1, 2000

$100,000 beginning June 1, 2000

Interest:	The then-current Applicable Federal Rate pursuant to IRC Section1274(d), compounded annually (the rate for October 1999 is 6.02%).

Maturity:	Earlier of June 30, 2005 or termination of full time employmentby Brown with Exodus Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries.  Brown agrees torepay any outstanding principal balance on the loan as follows:  When Brownsells any stock underlying options granted by Exodus, Brown shall repay theoutstanding principal to the extent of 25% of the gross profits from such sale.If Brown's annual gross compensation (including bonus) exceeds $336,000, Brownshall repay the outstanding principal at the end of the fiscal year the amountthat exceeds $336,000.

Security:	Evidenced by a full recourse promissory note and secured by asecurity agreement on the real principal residence property of Brown.  In theevent that it is not possible to obtain a security interest in the principalresidence real property of Brown (due to the refusal of a senior creditor), theparties agree that they will in good faith determine acceptable alternatesecurity.	

Forgiveness:	If Brown is involuntarily terminated by Exodus for any reasonother than Cause at any time following the first anniversary of Brown'semployment commencement date, Brown's then-outstanding loan repaymentobligations (principal and interest) shall be forgiven.  At the time theprincipal is repaid in full all outstanding interest obligations will beforgiven or forgiven as described in the forgoing sentence.

 

Date:  October 5, 1999

 

Robert Helms, Vice President Human Resources  __________________________

Exodus Communications, Inc.

 

Beverly A.  Brown 				________________________________