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

                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                        OF NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months         Three Months
                                                       Ended 3/31/01        Ended 3/31/00
                                                       -------------        -------------
<S>                                                  <C>                  <C>
Net earnings                                            $     (816,000)      $      413,000
                                                     =================    =================


Earnings (loss) Per Share - Primary
-----------------------------------
Weighted average shares  outstanding
    during the period                                   $    5,470,311            5,468,644
                                                     =================    =================


Earnings (loss)per common share -Primary
                                                        $         (.15)      $          .08
                                                     =================    =================
Earnings (loss) Per Share - Diluted
-----------------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                                   $    5,470,311            5,468,644


Common and Common Stock equivalent shares using
the treasury stock method                                            0              186,190
                                                     -----------------    -----------------

Total shares outstanding for purposes of
calculating diluted earnings                            $    5,470,311            5,654,834
                                                     =================    =================


Earnings (loss) per common and common Equivalent
share - Diluted                                         $         (.15)      $          .07
                                                     =================    =================

</TABLE>




                                       15
# C_2005143EN.01003401.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/34

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 2005

in Case T-206/02 Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Locus standi - Association - Admissibility)

(2005/C 143/64)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-206/02: Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Boisseau, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and S. Marquardt) supported by Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: initially G. zur Hausen and G. Boudot, and subsequently J. Enegren and G. Boudot, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially J. Collins, and subsequently R. Caudwell, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Council Decision 2002/334/CE of 2 May 2002, implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

| 3. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

1

---
Air Resources Board

Mary D. Nichols, Chairman

1001 I Street• P.O. Box 2815

Mathew Rodriquez Sacramento, California 95812 www.arb.ca.gov Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Secretary for Governor

Environmental Protection

June 1,2015

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld:

Per the enclosed May 19, 2015 letter from the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution

Control District, the Air Resources Board (ARB) requests that the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) grant the Eastern San Luis Obispo County

nonattainment area (San Luis Obispo) a one-year extension of the July 20, 2015,

marginal attainment date for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard.

Under Section 181 (a)(5) of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA Administrator may grant a

one-year extension of an area’s attainment date if two conditions are met: the state has

complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the

applicable state implementation plan, and the 4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour

average ozone value in the attainment year is 0.075 ppm or less.

Attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard is based on a design value reflecting three

years of quality assured, complete and certified ambient air quality monitoring data.

The three years to determine attainment of the July 2015 marginal attainment date are

2012, 2013, and 2014. As shown in Table 1, San Luis Obispo’s 2014 design value is

above the 8-hour ozone standard and therefore does not qualify for attainment.

However, the 4th-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone value in the 2014

attainment year is 0.073 ppm, consistent with requirements for an attainment date

extension. In a May 8, 2015, letter to U.S. EPA, ARB certified the 2014 monitoring

data for San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo also complies with all state implementation

plan requirements for a marginal nonattainment area.

The energy challenge facing California is real. Eve,y Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.

For a llst of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our website: http:/Iwww.arb.ca.gov.

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Jared Blumenfeld

June 1,2015

Page 2

If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Ms. Karen Magliano, Chief,

Air Quality Planning and Science Division, at (916) 322-5350, or via email at

Karen.Magliano~arb.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Corey

Executive Officer

Enclosures (2)

cc: Ms. Deborah Jordan, Director

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Air Division — Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

Ms. Nancy Levin

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Air Division — Region 9

Air Rules Office

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

Mr. Larry Allen

Air Pollution Control Officer

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District

3433 Roberto Court

San Luis Obispo, California 93401

Ms. Karen Magliano, Chief

Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Hri':lrd Pealer Plart I star West Generalim

### ~ • About» • Mana&ement 

### Team • OurMtisi>n • Our Assets 

### • Teclmolo&Y • Sitetmp • Contact Us 

### » 

## •

lsearch this site... 

### I P**Our** 

### Assets .Hanfurd Peaker P1ant 

# Hanford Peaker Plant

The 

### Ha.nfbrd Peaker is a**98-~gawatt** natural 

### gas fueled power pJant bcated in the 

### cen1ral valley ofCaifomia 

### on an approximately 15.5 acre site in HanfOrd, CalifOrnia. lla.nfurd**co~ts** 

### of two GE LM6000 SPRINT con:bustion turbines 1hat operate in simpJc 

### cycJe 

### mxte. The LM-6000 engine is an "aero-derivative" design, with quick start capability 

### and demomtrated exceDent operating pa.ratmers ofhigh reliability and availability. Natural 

### gas is provided 

### to 

### Ha.nfOrd through a pipeline ioterconnectim with the Southern CaJitbmia Gas Company (''SoCalGas') system. A**se~** catalytic reduction system is en:pbyed 

### fur emissions control Power 

### fi:om the p1a.nt substation is delivered to PG&E at their 115 kV swirohyard. Hanfonl PeakerPlant IDformation !Location 

### I IJianfurd, Calitbmia 

# INet Capacity

### 8MW 

# ! star West Ownership 1 1 100%

## ~JamC~and ecbnobgy 

# IE GE lM6000 SPRINT 

### c:onDustion turbiles
1t.ZllJ200014 Hanfa"d Pealer Plant I star West Generation

### uel 

# l iNatural Gas jGas Interconnection l rG&E IEiect:rkal Intercomection I IPG&E switchyard@ 115 kV jCAISO region

### ~P-15 !Power Purchaser I IPG&E 

### Main Menu

• Hmre • About o Star West Generation o OurOwners •**Manage~** Team • Our Mission • Our Assets • Technohgy • Sitemap • ContactUs o Contact Form o Our Locations Star West GenerationLLC 12929 ADen Parkway 

### I Suite 2280 

### I Houston, Texas 770191 Tet (713) 496-9830 Designed by Internet SEQ Experts

http://WoYN.starwastgen.canf2013106Jhanford-pealer-plant/ 212
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2168 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2168

 To waive the passport fees for first responders proceeding abroad to 
        aid a foreign country suffering from a natural disaster.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2017

     Mr. Issa (for himself, Mrs. Comstock, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of 
  Pennsylvania, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mrs. 
 Dingell, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Beyer, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Connolly, 
 Mr. Donovan, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Royce of California, 
 Mr. Deutch, Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Duncan of South Carolina) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To waive the passport fees for first responders proceeding abroad to 
        aid a foreign country suffering from a natural disaster.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``First Responders Passport Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. PASSPORTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1 of the Act of June 4, 
1920 (22 U.S.C. 214; 41 Stat. 750; commonly referred to as the 
``Passport Act of 1920''), is amended, in the third sentence, by 
inserting after ``to attend a funeral or memorial service for such 
member;'' the following: ``from an individual who is operating under a 
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with the United States 
Government, including a volunteer, who is proceeding abroad to aid a 
foreign country suffering from a natural disaster as determined by the 
Secretary;''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the end of the first full 
fiscal year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
a report on the number of waivers of fees for the execution and 
issuance of passports to first responders under section 1 of the Act of 
June 4, 1920, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, for such 
fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2








Certification of Chief Financial 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 September 30, 2009 (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: November 12, 2009
/s/ Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.
Vice President, Treasurer & Assistant Secretary of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of the Registrant
EXHIBIT 10.23

          Summary of Salary Increases and Bonuses to Executive Officers

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                             <C>                  <C>                     <C>                   <C>

Name:                          Jan W. Clark       John G. Warner       Michael T. Storm       Michael L. Derr
Start Date:                      12/1996             12/1996                1/1998                5/2001

Starting Salary                 $110,000             $100,000                $67,500               $80,000

Bonus 2000:                            -                    -                      -                     -
Salary Effective 1/2001         $143,500             $130,500                $92,500                     -

Bonus 2001:                            -                    -                      -                     -
Salary Effective 1/2002         $151,500             $137,500                $98,500               $84,000

Bonus 2002:                            -                    -                      -                     -
Salary Effective 1/2003         $160,000             $145,000               $105,000               $90,000

Bonus 2003:                            -                    -                      -                     -
Salary Effective 1/2004         $170,000             $154,000               $112,000               $96,000

Bonus 2004:                       $5,000               $5,000                 $5,000                $5,000
Salary Effective 1/2005         $178,500             $161,700               $117,600              $100,800

</TABLE>





Note: Salary amounts above do not include potential  payments in lieu of allowed
paid-days-off (vacation, sick and personal days off) not utilized.

(Information  provided  beginning  with  first year for which CN  Bancorp,  Inc.
provided audited financial statements in an Annual Report on Form 10-KSB).







                                       1
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

Diversion (362)

D.1. Redirected water 

flow

1. Channel across the slope

I.8 (+) Upland 

wildlife

C.4 (+) Income and

income stability (individuals 

and community) 

C.3 (+) Preservation of 

infrastructure; reduced 

community maintenance costs

1.7 (-) Sediments and 

sediment-borne 

contaminants

I.4 (-) Ephemeral 

gullies

C.2 (+) Fishable and swimmable waters; 

reduced health and safety issues for 

humans, domestic, and wild animals

I.6 (+) Soil health

Initial setting: Land subject to water 

erosion and/or runoff

I.2 (-) Runoff 

velocity

I.10 (-) Maintenance 

of drainage ditches 

and other structures

I.9 (+) Crop 

production

I.11.(+) Net return 

to farmer

Critical Area Planting (342)

2. Vegetative cover

I.5 (-) Classic 

gullies I.1 (-) Peak flow

I.3 (-) Onfarm 

flooding

C.1 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters

D.2 (+) Carbon storage

(-) Greenhouse gasses

D.3 (+) Wildlife food 

and cover

C.6 (+) Health for 

humans, domestic 

animals, and wildlife

C.5 (+) Air 

quality of the 

airshed

Start

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Grassed Waterway (412)

Lined Waterway or Outlet 

(468)

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.
# C_2005006EN.01001502.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 28 October 2004

in Case C-421/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

1

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 6/27)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-421/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on the 3 October 2003 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, acting for the President, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

1

---
# C_2004300EN.01003601.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/36

---

Action brought on 15 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-437/04)

(2004/C 300/69)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.-F. Pasquier, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by imposing a tax which infringes the European Communities' fiscal immunity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by imposing a tax which infringes the European Communities' fiscal immunity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The imposition by an Ordonnance Régionale of 23 July 1992 of a regional tax on occupiers of buildings and owners of real property rights over certain buildings situated within the territory of the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale is an infringement of the Communities' fiscal immunity under Article 3 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965. That Ordonnance has innovated by comparison to the previous legislation by adding to the tax imposed on occupiers, a tax on owners in the event of commercial occupancy of a building with more than a certain floor area. As the drafting history of the Ordonnance of 23 July 1992 shows, such taxation of owners is, in fact, a legal device intended to circumvent the fiscal immunity of certain persons or institutions occupying buildings. It is on those persons and among them the Communities that the economic burden of the tax actually falls, either because of contractual stipulations in leases, under which they are to bear all rates and taxes on the building, unless they obtain exemption therefrom as regards the lessor, or because of its effect on the rental. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, any legal provision which, without expressly subjecting the Community to a tax, has the express aim and effect of making the Community, even indirectly but nonetheless compulsorily, bear a tax, infringes the principle of immunity.

---
DRAFT SPA 16 

•
 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 17 C
 

. Household Waste
 

FEDERALREQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION 

WAC 173-303 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

EQUIV- LESS MORE BROADER 

ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE 

GENT GENT 

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
 

SUBPART A - GENERAL
 

EXCLUSIONS 

t household waste I261.4(b)(1) I-071(3)(C) I X I D 

• 

• CL17 .16 - Revised: 09/18/95 

Printed: 7/24/98

july 15, 1985 - Page 1 of 27
# C_2005143EN.01002802.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of 4 April 2005, in URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE

(Case C-169/05)

(2005/C 143/44)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation de Belgique (Belgium) of 4 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE, on the following question:

Must Article 9(2) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, that society does not have the power to exercise that rightholder's right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission, since it is mandated only to manage the pecuniary aspects of that rightholder's rights?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.

1

---