alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DMVI T• II/L 2 (Luftfahrtsbulehungan ) Poslanschrifl : Postfach201
. 100 0 Wie n riTiirklTO rI ^ ^ i^i - Buroanschrift ; RadeUkystraB e 2,103 0 Wie n 1 "'''AnTM i N l U rhmKrifi s E-Mal , ,2@.TM,..9v.a

. ^ANSPORWIO N ^ " « ^ ' *



# . M',ETOPER^!ONS^'^"rr;; : GZ , BMVIT-40.005/0005-II/L2/201 0 DVR:000017 5 m ^CT? 5 P I - 2 1 Pau l Gretc h Director , Offic e of Internationa l Aviatio n Offic e of th e Assistan t Secretar yfo r Aviatio n an d Internationa l Affairs U.S

. Departmen t of Transportatio n 120 0 New / Jerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Paul.GretchO.dot.gov CC : apoell@jetalliance.a t Vienna , 2 3 Jun e 201 0 Dea rMr
. Gretch , Wit h referenc e t o th e intention s o f th e Austria n designate d carrie r JETALLIANC E Flugbetrieb s A G t o conduc

t non-schedule d ai rservice s to/fro m th e Unite d State s base d o n fifth , sixt h o rsevent h freedo m traffi crights , accordin g t o th e provision s of th e bilatera l ai rservice s agreemen t (Ai r Service s Agreemen t betwee n th e Austria n Federa l Governmen t an d th e Governmen t of th e Unite d State s o f America , don e at Vienn a o n 16 " of Marc h 1989
. as amended ) Austria n Civi l Aviatio n Authorityhereb yconfirm s tha t simila rrequest s submitte d b yU.S

. carriers wil l b e treate d o n th e basi s o f reciprocity
. Sincerely/Vours , 

# Q Silvi a Gehre r Director , Ai rTranspor

t Affairs Federa l Ministr

yof Transport , Innovatio n an d Technolog y Civi l Aviatio n AuthorityAustri a
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2016

NO. 03-16-00652-CV

Stephan Ricks, Appellant

v.

Veronica Dorsey, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE 

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<PAGE>
                                  [EXHIBIT 11]

                         NORTH FORK BANCORPORATION, INC.

              COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                               SEPTEMBER 30, 2001
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED               NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                       -------------------------------   -------------------------------
                                                       SEPT. 30, 2001   SEPT. 30, 2000   SEPT. 30, 2001   SEPT. 30, 2000
                                                       --------------   --------------   --------------   --------------
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net Income .........................................     $ 84,853,733     $ 72,683,800     $241,499,936     $160,614,424

Common Equivalent Shares:

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding .........      159,682,475      171,950,950      159,429,006      168,658,620
Weighted Average Common Equivalent Shares ..........        1,919,539        1,261,698        1,835,219        1,197,342
                                                         ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
Weighted Average Common and Common Equivalent Shares      161,602,014      173,212,648      161,264,225      169,855,962
                                                         ============     ============     ============     ============

Net Income per Common Equivalent Share - Basic .....     $       0.53     $       0.42     $       1.51     $       0.95
Net Income per Common Equivalent Share - Diluted ...     $       0.53     $       0.42     $       1.50     $       0.95
</TABLE>


                                       23
<PAGE>   1
                                  [EXHIBIT 11]

                         NORTH FORK BANCORPORATION, INC.

              COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                  JUNE 30, 1998
                                   (UNAUDITED)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED              SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        JUNE 30, 1998   JUNE 30, 1997   JUNE 30, 1998   JUNE 30, 1997
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>         
Net Income .........................................    $ 50,895,586    $ 43,583,073    $ 58,272,074    $ 79,562,378

Common Equivalent Shares:

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding .........     141,316,444     138,292,003     139,904,910     138,004,295
Weighted Average Common Equivalent Shares ..........       1,146,034       2,121,800       1,243,764       2,066,989
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and Common Equivalent Shares     142,462,478     140,413,803     141,148,674     140,071,284
                                                        ============================================================

Net Income per Common Equivalent Share - Basic .....    $       0.36    $       0.32    $       0.42    $       0.58
Net Income per Common Equivalent Share - Diluted ...    $       0.36    $       0.31    $       0.41    $       0.57
</TABLE>


                                       23
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2260 

To increase the maximum penalties for assaulting Federal officers by 50 

percent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2021 

Mr. HAWLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To increase the maximum penalties for assaulting Federal 

officers by 50 percent. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 

4 IN THE LINE OF DUTY. 

5 Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in section 111(b), by striking ‘‘20 years’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘30 years’’; and 

9 (2) in section 115(b)(1)(B)— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2260 IS

1 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘18 months’’; 

3 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘10 years’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘15 years’’; 

5 (C) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘20 years’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘30 years’’; and 

7 (D) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘30 years’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘45 years’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,814,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,495,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (320,222)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,001,661
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,751,378
<PP&E>                                       6,257,476<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,487,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,361,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       138,412
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,979,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,487,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,055,029
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,069,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,487,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (899,493)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,176)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,941,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,941,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,941,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.03)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.03)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION AS REPORTED WITHIN THE ANNUAL
REPORT OF FORM 10-K ON THE BALANCE SHEET
<F2>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE-BASIC" IS REPORTED AS THE
VALUE FOR "EPS-PRIMARY" TAG AND "EARNING PER SHARE-DILUTED" IS REPORTED AS THE
VALUE FOR "EPS-DILUTED" TAG
</FN>


</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Art of Healing Medicine, P.C., as Assignee of JAMES DORSAINVIL, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County</p><p>(Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered February 10, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Art of Healing Medicine, P.C., as Assignee of James Dorsainvil v Allstate Ins. Co.</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2014-2501 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 17, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
arr:: 4 

REF A~U"' PURIFICADA V REFRIGISAADA 

• :UARTOll CON BARO. TE'-!!...!'ONO V ABANICQ IEL.IECTRICO 

;._-;;' llAR CON AIRE ACONDIC::IONADO. 

ARQUITECTURA COL.ONIAL.. 

hlOBILIARIO TAL.LADO. 

JAFIDINElf • Tl!FIRAZAB • AL.BERCA •BAL.ON DE EIEL.L.EZA 

TIENDA DIE CURIOSIDADE&. 

FUIENTll!C DE BODA. MEhlDP,., Yue,, ME)C 

RIFIED RUNNINGI ICE•WATIER. 

"'OOM& WITH PRIVATE BATH. FAN AND TEL.EPHONS 

AIR·CONDITIONED llAR. 

COL.ONIAL. ARCHITECTURE. 

HAND•CARVED FURNITURE. 

llBAUTIFUL. GIARDIENB•BWIMMINGI POOL.-TERRACES. 

BEAUTY PARL.oR•CURIO SHOP. 

SODA FOUNTAIN. 

~~~PP~r~ov~e~d-fo~r~R~e~le~as~e~b~y~N~S~A~o~n~1~1-~1~8-~2~0~13~p~ur~su~a~ntwt~o~E~.0~.~1~35~2~fTr~*~-~>~x.~z1c.::::===:::.:::"::::--:•:•:•~-~-.. 
-· .- . - -- .. . - MER•DA, YUC' M<• · • • .,-,- , · · '· , . "·" .... · , .- . _.,. --

:- = :·- ~ -,} v::rb --: xi:irrr: t-\ ~:: :--~: >r c.;-~;~ c;.:- :~<;:_;, _,, 

-- -:~:'.--~J./ 6 IJ}_u,'1.cffi:iJ-i~i.-llW'· ( aJL~?.~, - . . --11}--· -~ . -----r-c I' 'p v,~ ---.. '"·· .. _ .. -- . :.··, .. ~ "ct:--.1:-.' '.".«-f ~'-<::: "" . _ 1 .... ' ......:,.,.- > ' -:- _., - -:.--.. :-p· ··t::;::- .. u1·: f.-}. Al·,a:..;.._:·.;~ =_ -·:_-. :-~~··=~- ~--_:--·~·_:-:·"-;:_, .. ~;t:~~:- -- - - --·- "' . ··- /,-' l.-- -{ v fl . . ... - ...... - . . .. -·· -- --- . . ._.. - . . . ;. --- .. --- ' - : . . .. ,. ·.,.-:; ·.:- ... ,. .. - - coRMEO AEREO ; VIA AlR' MAIL - ... , .. -·':.::::.: ""'.' 

... ·• :'.> . .. .. .. ·J ;,;, .. ''>' .. ' .;:L\(_ .. ~;~)~,,),,. /''/· ,,~:;
¥l!ll0RA1U'llll FOR1 

RE~ID: A:10'5"14"6 · 

.· 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OP'FICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 

June 13, 1936 

Research & Dcvelo~ment Div1e10ll 

(TllRUs War flane I: Training Division. 

1., There are attached two echemea for enciphering Mtter 

eiectricall:y tranSl!litted by facsimile or telephoto means. One 

o"!' these 11chemes is the Jo1nt invention of Colonel J • O. Ha.uborgnc, 

and m;yse1£,, concei-ted several years ago. The other is my o"A-'l'l idea 

£or use 1n conneation with dot methods of facsimile tr6nsm1ae1on. 

2- It ia deaired to tile application £or patent on these 

syatems and apparatus .. 

William F. :Friedman. 

Atte.cbeds. 

2 schemes. 

lat lla.o :tnd. 

IP&! Di T. • OOS1g0, Jue 15, 1936. 1Jo i 

sion. 

ReseP.rch and lle-Yelo?ment DiTi-

~~ 

FILE 

AR PLANS AND TRAI!'JIN G DIVISION 

- • .· ........ E\_p_p_r_ov_e_d_f_o_r '"""R-e-le_a_s_e_b_y .... N .... S .... A.--o-n .... 0 ... 9--1 .... 1 .... -2 .... 0 .... 1 .... 3...--p-u-rs_u_a-nt_t_o"""'E ..... 0.,,....- .,..1 3"""'5"""'2...,.e-·~- · ·---· --._
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON CABOT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STEPHANE COMBET-BLANC; PAULA

ABRAHIMI,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-55422

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05728-ODWAJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jason Cabot appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

diversity action as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ellis v. San Diego, 176

FILED

MAR 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cabot’s action because Cabot filed suit

after the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

§ 335.1 (two years for “[a]n action for assault, battery, or injury to . . . an

individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another”); § 340 (one year for

defamation and false imprisonment claims). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabot’s motion

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 because Cabot failed to establish grounds warranting

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds

for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).

Cabot’s argument that the district court should have permitted discovery to

allow him to establish the amount of time, if any, defendants were absent from

California to toll his claims under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 351 is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-55422
j 

Q) 

...... 

'-4 

μ.. 

~ 0 

0 

- ~Kn~:A72263 ..... · 

bl1t: I r . _J #' 

llBll>RA?UJU'M FOh& Mr. w. Park Armatrong1 Jr. 

lpeaial Aaaiatant. tor beearch and lntalligenco 0.partment ot state 

ath retermce to th• quest.ion aa to what actual ar potentia L damage 

to the commnnicationa aecurit)t ot tho United St.at•• 1111.ght result rrom the 

public dillaloeuro ot the contmt.a ot t.he subject miarot1lm• it ie at this 

JIQillfg\t p01dble o~ to litate the tallowing1 

1. 'lithOUt an opportunity tor communication security techni :al pareonnet to examine the tU.. it ie impoead.ble to .u1m any oategoricll. 

•t..atementa ae to posaible dUBge. The reason tor thie i• that although 

the allepd period covered b7 th• ad.arot1la - namq, earl;y 1937 to April 19'8 - would perhape not deal with the •thode and devices current.lJr 

fllOl4.07ed b7 &llJ' United States Ooverni.'"lltnt department, including th• Dep&"t-

•Dt of st.at.a, O.partmnt of th• Anq, Department ot the Navy and Depart-

.-nt ol the Air Force, it ia barei,- poeeible that new devel.opr:aent1 in 

:PftJ&ffad dt.tri.ng the stated period llllght tom a pa:rt. ot the aubject. matter 

ot th• :tila. Theao dwelopuent.e have culDd.nated in th• Jll'O(luctio:i ot the •chino• and aptema current]¥ in uaeJ and while the diacloeure or these 

dcwel.opaenta would net. •k• it poaaible tor a toreign power to or:rpt~• 

United S1'at.ee oocaunioationa, it would pl.Ace in the ban.is ot that torai.gn 

power or;Vptogra)id.a ,Prinoipl.ea o! auah aoundneaa •• to h.ave aerl.011.a reper- cua.S.on• upon United Statea aoanunico.t.S.on intelligence capabilities if 

1t1ch principles were adopted tor ita own uee. 

211 With the aceptJ..on noted above it 1a believed that d1.ecl-011Ure ot 

UV' 01'7ptograph10 Wormation aoyering •t.eriala actuall7 in uee auring 

the ,peri.od et.ated would not, reault in llJJ1 Cor189<Jl.,t.1al damage to the OOl:lblllftlc~tlon ••curity ot the Onitai States ao tar aa ac-ncorna cut"rent or 

.tutu.re oomD.llliaatioll8. 

.J/ 

,.,.. 'Y • tI I . 

-r .. v--r l N,. • ~ _,)- • ". ./ \ JJ !>- j,..& 

n ,\ ,p \ ., ..o\ eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-09-2014 • ·, 

\ .: ..... • I() V'" '·." ,'J ursuantto E.O. 13526 ~ ~;,;,,;;;;;;;;--..;,;;,,,;;;;;;...-,,;..;;;;,,;,,...;.;;;;;.;;;;,,;;;,;_______________ '.' . ' 

SECREl 
r 

. 

-- c' • r-1 

• 

' ' ' 

REF ID:A72263 -

SECRET 

). !he pibllc diacuaBion and publication o! & cr.Vpt.o,graphic 

1.ntormatlon concerning pri.nciplea or method• used bJ" the United Sta.tea Ckn'e~nt would not be in the interest ot national aecurit7. The polic,y 

of the government ha• COll8ieten'tq been to withhold aucll inforAl!ltion to 

the greatest degree poadble. 

BAR>LD a .. HAYES 

Colonel, Signal Corpa 

Cbiet, ltrfl¥ Securit7 A&•n~7 

SECRET 

2
ex10_1.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1







SUMMARY SHEET FOR 2011 NON-EMPLOYEE/NON-INVESTOR DIRECTOR COMPENSATION







The following table sets forth the compensation for USEC’s non-employee/non-investor directors for the term commencing at the 2011 annual meeting of shareholders held on April 28, 2011:








	
Annual Retainer

	
$200,000 paid at the beginning of the service year.  $80,000 of the retainer is paid in cash and $120,000 of the retainer is paid in the form of restricted stock units, although a director may elect to receive a greater proportion of the retainer in restricted stock units. Restricted stock units vest one year from the date of grant, however, vesting is accelerated upon (1) the director attaining eligibility for Retirement, (2) termination of the director’s service by reason of death or disability, or (3) a change in control.


 


	
Chairman Fees

	
$100,000 annual fee for Chairman of the Board.  $20,000 annual fee for Audit and Finance Committee chairman.  $10,000 annual fee for Compensation Committee chairman.  $7,500 annual fee for all other committees’ chairman.  Chairman fees are paid in cash at the beginning of the service year, although a director may elect to receive their chairman fee in restricted stock units.


 


	
Incentive Restricted Stock Unit Awards

	
If a director chooses to receive restricted stock units as payment for the part of the annual retainer or chairman fees that they are otherwise entitled to receive in cash, he or she will receive an incentive payment of restricted stock units equal to 20% of the portion of the annual retainer and chairman fees that the director elects to take in restricted stock units in lieu of cash.  These incentive restricted stock units will vest in equal annual installments over three years from the date of grant, however, vesting is accelerated upon (1) the director attaining eligibility for Retirement, (2) termination of the director’s service by reason of death or disability, or (3) a change in control.  Incentive restricted stock units are granted at the time the annual retainer is paid.












 All restricted stock units are granted pursuant to the USEC Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and are subject to the terms of such plan and the applicable restricted stock unit award agreements approved for issuance of restricted stock units to non-employee directors under the plan.  Settlement of restricted stock units is made in shares of USEC stock upon the director’s retirement or other end of service.  Retirement is defined in the USEC Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan in the case of non-employee directors as termination of service on or after age 75.  Restricted stock units carry the right to receive dividend equivalent restricted stock units to the extent dividends are paid by the Company.
Wm. Rancher Estates Joint Venture, Rafael Alfaro, Jose Alfaro, Carman Alfaro, Daniel

/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 11, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00542

- CV

CITY OF LEON VALLEY , Texas, Unknown Employee(s) of C ity of Leon Valley, and Irene Baldridge, Appellant s

v.

WM. RANCHER ESTATES JOINT VENTURE , Rafael Alfaro, Jose Alfaro, Carman Alfaro, Daniel Bee, Robert Caldwell, Anne Caldwell, Earl Doderer, Sylvia Doderer, James Dowdy, Betty Dowdy, Issac Elizondo, Suza nne Elizondo, Roberto Galindo, Erma Galindo, Et al., Appellee s

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 03399 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Glyn Poage's notification of late reporter's record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to September 12, 2014.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court