alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI 

GOVERNOR 

October 26, 2010 

David Conroy, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

U.S . EPA Region I-NE 

5 Post Office Square 

Mail Code: OEP 05-2 

Boston, Ma. 02109-3912 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

Enclosed please find for your approval and inclusion into Maine's State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), Chapter 161 Graphic Arts - Lithography and Letterpress Printing . 

BETH NAGUSKY 

ACTING COMMISSIONER 

A public hearing was held on August 6, 2009 in accordance with federal and state administrative 

requirements. Public notice of the hearing was published in the Kennebec Journal on July 6, 

2009 and in newspapers statewide on July 15, 2009. On March 18, 2010, the Board of 

Environmental Protection adopted Chapter 161 . 

The following administrative materials are enclosed: 

1 . Memorandum to the Board of Environmental Protection requesting a public hearing dated 

June 18, 2009; 

2. Copy of the public notice that appeared in the Kennebec Journal on July 6, 2009; 

3 . Memorandum to the Board of Environmental Protection requesting adoption of the rule, 

dated March 16, 2010; 

4. Chapter 161 Graphic Arts - Lithography and Letterpress Printing as adopted by the Board of 

Environmental Protection on March 16, 2010 with an effective date of April 6, 2010; 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK 

(207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04679-2094 

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 760-3143 

STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

web site : www.maine .gov/dep 
Letter to 

(date) 

Page 2 of 2 

5. Summary of comments and the Department's response; 

6. MAPA I form for Chapter 161 which provides certification by the Commissioner that the 

hearing was held on August 6, 2009, the Board of Environmental Protection lawfully adopted 

this rule on April 6, 2010 and certification that the Attorney General approved the rule as to 

form and legality ; and 

7. The August 6, 2009 public hearing transcript . 

Should you have any questions, please contact Deb Avalone-King at (207) 287-2437. 

Sincerely, 

ames P . Brooks 

Director 

Bureau of Air Quality 

Enclosures 

cc: Anne Arnold 

Ariel Garcia 

Deb Avalone-King w/o encl 

SIP file
exv4w5












Exhibit 4.5


	 	 	 	 	 







	FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES WITHOUT PAR VALUE IN THE CAPITAL OF




	UnriJ ilic Separation Time as defined in the Rujhis Agreement referral to below), this certificate
also evidences and entitles [he holder hereof to certain Righis as set fwili in a Shareholder RifhB
Plan Agreement, nude as of May 18, 5007. as such iBrecmeni may from time 10 lime be amendtd,
itsuicd, varied or replaced ([he “Rights Agreement-), between Iweroil Corporation and Computcrshsre
Investor Services lit., as Rights Agrnt the terras of which are hereby incorporated herein by
reference snd a copy of which is on file at the registered office of the Corporation al)0 is
ivailable for viewing at www.5njar.nini. Under certain circumstances, is set forth in me
RigMs Agreement, such Rights may I* amended or redeemed, may expire, may become raid (if. in
certain cases. Ihey are -Beneficially Owned” by an “Acquirins Person’, as such terms are defined in
the Rights Agreement, or a transferee liiereof) or may be evidenced by separate certificates and
may no longer be evidenced by this certificate. The Corporation will mail or arrange for the
mailing of a copy of the Rights Agreement to the holder of this certificate willnii! charge as soon
as practicable after the receipt of a written request therefor







 









 












	For value receivedhereby sell, ^ggn and transfer
unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAMEDDFf^SS AND S.I N. OF ASSIGNEE)
        . SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER
hi tares




	of the Capital Stock represented by the within Cerinicate,

and do hereby irrevocably constitute apcitooint




	Attorney




	to transfer the said stock on the Books of the within-named




	Corporation with fullpower of substitution in the
premises.




	Dated




	—  In the presence of




	Signature Guaranteed by:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,099
<SECURITIES>                                    22,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                      480
<ALLOWANCES>                                        60
<INVENTORY>                                         43
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,268
<PP&E>                                           4,117
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,944
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,607
<SALES>                                            147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,501
<CGS>                                              129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,373)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,373)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,373)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)
        

</TABLE>
* District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47-5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth

Circuit Rule 47-5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 02-60101

JESSE EMMIT RUPERT AND MARJORIE A. RUPERT,

Petitioners - Appellants

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court

January 9, 2003

Before BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM. **

I n this appeal, plaintiffs-appellants (“Taxpayers”) argue that the Tax Court clearly erred i n

determining that (1) Taxpayers were not ent itled to deduct, as business expenses, legal expenses

incurred by their daughter, but paid for by Taxpayers, in her do mestic relations litigation; (2)

Taxpayers were entitled to a depreciation deduction on their mo bile home but the depreciation was

to take place over a longer tax life than that used by Taxpayers; and (3) Taxpayers were liable for the2

accuracy-related penalt y in I.R.C. §6662(a) with regard to the portion of the underpayment

attributable to Taxpayers’ claim of the deduction for legal and professional fees.

After carefully considering the briefs and the positions advanced at oral argument, it is clear

that the record refle ct s t hat Taxpayers’ daughter’s legal expenses incurred as a result of divorce

procee dings were not ordinary and neces sary bus i ness expenses attributable to Mr. Rupert’s

engineering consulting business. Thus, these expenses were not deductible. Furthermore, for the

reasons stated by the Tax Court, it was correct to impose an accuracy-related penalty for deduction

of these expenses.

Finally, t he record is clear that Taxpayers’ mo bile home was not placed in service as rental

property until 1991. Thus, the Tax Court was correct in finding that Taxpayers were entitled to a

27.5-year depreciation deduction under the modified accelerated cost recover system for their mo bile

home, rather than the 10-year depreciation deduction available for rental property placed in service

on or before December 3 1, 1986 claimed by Taxpayers. Tax Reform Act of 1986 (“TRA”),

§203(a)(1)(A); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.167(a)-10( b) and 1.167(a)-11(e)(1)(i); Treas. Reg. §1.167(a)-

11(e)(1)(i); Treas. Reg. §1.46-3(d)(1)(ii).

Accordingly, the Tax Court did not err in its findings. We therefore A FFIRM the judgment

of the Tax Court.
EX PARTE James Amar WOODS

CR-16-0337

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct., Bessemer Div.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000798168
<NAME> JOULE INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       217
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,623
<PP&E>                                           4,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,279
<BONDS>                                            431
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,809
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,449
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   109
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                       601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,026
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

p0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148004 & (23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MI CHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148004

COA: 314214

Washtenaw CC: 99

- 012281

- FC

LOROASO A. TRAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 16, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1239 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study 

on motor vehicle recalls, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Ms. BLUNT

ROCHESTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States 

to conduct a study on motor vehicle recalls, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Safe Recall Informa5 tion Distributed Equitably Act of 2021’’ or the ‘‘Safe 

6 RIDE Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1239 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDY ON OPEN RECALLS. 

2 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

4 shall— 

5 (1) conduct a study to determine— 

6 (A) the number of passenger motor vehi7 cles in each State that— 

8 (i) are used— 

9 (I) as taxicabs; or 

10 (II) by transportation network 

11 companies for similar for-hire pur12 poses; and 

13 (ii) have 1 or more open recalls; and 

14 (B) the reasons why vehicle owners do not 

15 have repairs performed for vehicles subject to 

16 open recalls; and 

17 (2) submit to Congress a report on the results 

18 of the study under paragraph (1), including any rec19 ommendations for increasing the rate of repair for 

20 vehicles subject to open recalls. 

21 SEC. 3. STUDY ON RECALL NOTICES. 

22 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

23 of this Act, the Administrator of the National Highway 

24 Traffic Safety Administration shall— 

25 (1) conduct a study to determine the ways in 

26 which vehicle recall notices could— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1239 IH

1 (A) more effectively reach vehicle owners; 

2 (B) be made easier for all consumers to 

3 understand; and 

4 (C) incentivize vehicle owners to complete 

5 the repairs described in the recall notices; and 

6 (2) submit to Congress a report on the results 

7 of the study under paragraph (1). 

8 SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

9 Nothing in this Act may be construed to restrict the 

10 authority of the Secretary including under section 30111 

11 of title 49, United States Code or to meet the require12 ments enacted in Public Law 112–141 and Public Law 

13 114–94. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
10.33

    


    Supplemental
Agreement of Lease Agreement for Personal Care Products Production
Equipment

    


    This
Agreement is entered in Wuqing Tianjin on December 31, 2007.

    


    Party A:
Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Co., Ltd.

    Address:
No.6 Yuanquan Road, Wuqing New-tech Industry Park, Tianjin

    Legal
Representative: Yiqun Wu

    


    Party B:
Tianjin Tianshi Biological Engineering Co., Ltd.

    Address:
No.6 Yuanquan Road, Wuqing New-tech Industry Park, Tianjin

    Legal
Representative: Yiqun Wu

    


    After
sufficient negotiations, Party A and Party B agree to make the following
amendments to the “Lease Agreement for Personal Care Products production
Equipment” (the “Lease Agreement”) which was entered into by Party A and Party B
in Wuqing Tianjin on the 31st day of
October 2007.

    


    1. The
Leased Equipment which Party B acknowledged and agreed to rent in the Article
1.1 of the Lease Agreement is amended to as the equipment in the Exhibit 1 of
this Supplemental Agreement.

    


    2. The
Article 4.1 of the Lease Agreement is amended to as “The rent is Renminbi Forty
One Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Dollars Twenty One Cents (RMB41, 217.21) per
month and RMB Nine Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen Dollars
Four Cents (RMB 989,213.04) in total through the lease term”.

    


    Any
inconsistencies between this Supplemental Agreement and the Lease Agreement
shall, if any, be performed pursuant to this Supplemental Agreement. Any issue
not referred to in this Supplemental Agreement shall be performed in accordance
with the Lease Agreement.

    


    This
Supplemental Agreement has the same legal effect as the Lease Agreement and will
be terminated or rescinded when the Lease Agreement is terminated or
rescinded.

    


    This
Supplemental Agreement will become effective as of the day on which this
Supplemental Agreement is signed and sealed by Party A and Party B.

    


    This
Agreement executes in two copies and each party takes one, which shall be in the
same legal effect.

    


    


    Party A:
Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Co., Ltd

    By:  /s/ Yiqun
Wu

    Name:  Yiqun
Wu

    Title:  Legal
Representative

    


    Party B:
Tianjin Tianshi Biological Engineering Co., Ltd

    By:  /s/ Yiqun
Wu

    Name:  Yiqun
Wu

    Title:  Legal
Representative
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,011
<SECURITIES>                                22,019,064
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,382,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          338,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,044,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,382,691
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,162
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,162
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

Michael Pelzer and 

Pegasus Parachuting Services 

Complainant, 

v. 

FAA Docket No. 16-16-05 

The State of Michigan 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the 

above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for 

Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR part 16 (Rules of 

Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, Section 16.ll(a), the date by which the 

Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

May 19,2017. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

determination in this case. 

Directo , Office of Airport Compliance 

and anagement Analysis 

3-J?-17 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17, 2017, I FedX a true copy of the Notice of 

Extension ofTime to May 19, 2017, for FAA Docket 16-16-05 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainants 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Respondent 

Mike Trout 

Executive Administrator, Office of Aeronautics 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

2700 Port Lansing Road 

Lansing, MI 48906 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance Division (AC0-1 00) 

FAA Regional AGL 

'--"'~'IY•""•'·vtl rts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

                             OCULAR SCIENCES, INC.

       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  Three Months Ended              Nine Months Ended
                                                                      September 30,                   September 30,
                                                              ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                                                 1997            1996            1997             1996
                                                              -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                           <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>        
Net income                                                    $ 6,738,000     $ 3,601,000     $13,498,000     $ 6,860,000
                                                              ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
Weighted average shares outstanding                            20,087,540      16,749,266      17,899,991      16,725,037

Weighted average shares of stock options under the
      treasury stock method                                     1,993,957       2,782,622       2,571,192       2,767,083

Additional weighted average shares of stock options under
      the treasury stock method issued one year prior to
      initial filing of the registration statement dated
      August 4,1997                                                    --          16,467          17,706           7,319
                                                              -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
Pro forma weighted average number of common and common
           equivalent shares outstanding                       22,081,497      19,548,355      20,488,889      19,499,439
                                                              ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
Pro forma net income  per share                               $      0.31     $      0.18     $      0.66     $      0.35
                                                              ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
Oscar H. VINCES, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Xiomara CANO, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0541

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 17, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LUCK, JJ., concur.
Richard Lee ELLWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-0201

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.