alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           CHARTER ONE FINANCIAL, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED                NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                              -----------------------------     -----------------------------
                                                9/30/00          9/30/99          9/30/00          9/30/99
                                                -------          -------          -------          -------
                                                      (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<S>                                           <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE(1):
  Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding ..................      209,379,604      223,149,954      215,626,442      224,314,019
                                              ============     ============     ============     ============

  Net income ............................     $    109,592     $    104,502     $    324,588     $    315,824
                                              ============     ============     ============     ============
  Basic earnings per share ..............     $        .52     $        .47     $       1.50     $       1.41
                                              ============     ============     ============     ============

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE(1):
  Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding ..................      209,379,604      223,149,954      215,626,442      224,314,019
  Add common stock equivalents for shares
    issuable under stock option plans ...        4,386,828        4,802,275        3,739,680        5,385,237
                                              ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------
  Weighted average number of common and
    common equivalent shares outstanding       213,766,432      227,952,229      219,366,122      229,699,256
                                              ============     ============     ============     ============

  Net income ............................     $    109,592     $    104,502     $    324,588     $    315,824
                                              ============     ============     ============     ============
  Diluted earnings per share ............     $        .51     $        .46     $       1.48     $       1.38
                                              ============     ============     ============     ============
</TABLE>


-------------------------------------
(1) Restated to reflect the 5% stock dividend issued September 30, 2000.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9032]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulation Commission
[Docket No. RP97-309-000]


Southern Natural Gas Co.; Notice of GSR Revised Tariff Sheets

April 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with the proposed 
effective date of April 1, 1997:

Tariff Sheets Applicable to Contesting Parties:

Twenty Third Revised Sheet No. 14
Forty Fifth Revised Sheet No. 15
Twenty Third Revised Sheet No. 16
Forty Fifth Revised Sheet No. 17
Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 29

    Southern submits the revised tariff sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, to reflect a change in its FT/FT-NN GSR 
Surcharge, due to an increase in GSR billing units effective April 1, 
1997.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon all 
parties listed on the official service list compiled by the Secretary 
in these proceedings.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be 
filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of Southern's 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9032 Filed 4-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. Energy Information Administration | Quarterly Coal Report, January - March 2024

Table 25. Open market sales and average price of coke and breeze

(thousand short tons and dollars per short ton)

Year to date

Commodity January - March

2024

October - December

2023

January - March

2023 2024 2023

Percent

change

Coke

Sales 2,910 3,110 1,487 2,910 1,487 95.7

Average Price 215.84 221.78 446.43 215.84 446.43 -51.7

Breeze

Sales 163 215 98 163 98 66.7

Average Price 70.32 93.87 155.93 70.32 155.93 -54.9

Note: Total may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-3, 'Quarterly Survey of Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Coal Users.' Prior to third quarter 2014,

coke plant data was collected under Form EIA-5, 'Quarterly Coal Consumption and Quality Report - Coke Plants.'
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17634-17635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 
Hold a Public Meeting on the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and 
Recreational River Comprehensive Management Plan

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
and hold a public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the intent to prepare an environmental 
impact statement and hold a public meeting for the development of a 
Comprehensive Management Plan for the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic 
and Recreational River in New Jersey.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 at 7 p.m.

ADDRESS: Fox Nature Center, Atlantic County Park, Estell Manor, New 
Jersey.
    The purpose of this meeting is to solicit public input into the 
future management of the Great Egg Harbor National Scenic and 
Recreational River corridor and the identification of issues that need 
to be addressed for long-term protection. This National Park Service 
unit is managed in partnership with twelve New Jersey municipalities, 
the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, Atlantic, Gloucester, Camden, and 
Cape May Counties, The State of New Jersey,

[[Page 17635]]

and the Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association.
    We encourage all who have an interest in this National Park unit's 
future to attend or to contact Mary Vavra, National Park Service 
Project Leader, by letter or telephone. Minutes of the meeting will be 
available for distribution four weeks after the meeting at the Fox 
Nature Center.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Vavra, Project Leader, National Park Service, Chesapeake/Allegheny 
System Support Office, 200 Chestnut Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 
19106, (215) 597-9175.

    Dated: April 1, 1997.
Joan Krall,
Assistant Regional Director, Program and Financial Management, 
Northeast Field Area, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 97-8905 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0638

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STEVEN P. MCNELLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until February 22, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

January 17 2023

01/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0638
OFFiCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eon. D. Riohard Vo&ee 

county Attorney 

viilson county 

Apl-11 11, 1940, whemin the 

M emargsncg 

tlcns of the 

1492 emend8 

lpi0 dM&3T.8 

all or the Beathat It was 

1 of Article 

ion, th5.c deportmat ruled 

ture, in a8mndl.u~ BeatloP 

0, that 811 or the motion8 

Y said elnntldment, thw making 

applicable to Igil8on County. 

ewink: said opinion and the ORBB 

y%.sda Independent Sohool ISstrlat, 

agree with you that we tread in 

Of Article 952, Vr!rAoA’B Penal Code, 18 BB8- 

ke se&Ion of thle 8tntute, rn% upoa which 

em wholly dependent. Pihen the amended Seots rightful place esnignedto it by ths I.&&enothing in tns hod of the eirendatory House 

Bill 432, 46th Legirleturq, to 8how thet other 8eCtiOIl8 Of the 

Act dependent on this section would not.rrfmS.n dlepandent upon 

the emendeta,ry ssation. Drawincf from the lnngmga ueed in the 

Shipley ~~32, super 

When a mh section has been intmduoed into 
(P law, it n.Us'i b;: aonr-trued in vlsr! 0:' tSc origi~~al 

statute as it stands attw the amen%uent 16 introducsd,and it an% hi1 trie &ectlone ol th6 old law 

must be regt;r%ed aa a h8nIIOniGU8 whole, all eectlons 

mutually ectlng upon each other." 

Fe have aonoluded that the Leglslcture $6 intention 

sea, ae strjted in the emergency cleuee of Howe Dill 432, 56th 

Legislcturs, "to pleC0 i'iilSO2 COWIt; in the 68168 8tetu8 86 the 

adjoining countlre." Elavihg reached that cons:usion, th?re is 

little signlfioenoe to be attached to the leug~age or the title 

tc t;e bill, *To Amen% Section 1" of Article QEFz of the Penal 

cods 0r Tsxee, when th.3 other ?,ectione are 80 expresel- relate% 

to Section 1 an% being gtrmiarie to the eubjedt of'drtio f e 952, 

supra, SDLQS cm necefieary in the maintaining of Wilson County 

lo equul atetue wita the a%jOiAiA& oountles. 

h reference tc'en ertiole IA 8 oode, 8ucki a8 the Revim% civil statutes, iii sufrioient iA the title 0r an eofi 

amendatory thereof to ellow any aman%ment germane to the subject 

treeted in the article referred to 

that the n88klng or the erticle or i,~';o=~~"~~~t;~~~~~e~~~~h= 

attention ol the bgi8latOr8 to all of the proviaiona therein, 

a8 ths subject of the amending act, an% theft sueh provisions can 

be ascertained by rreding the srtiolss to be emended. CernOUh 

et ux. vs. Colorado County, 48 S. P. (2d) 47l$ Fx perte Erak, 

128 9. 1. (2d) 776. 

&aviq acted upon your reque8t ror a reoenaideration 

of Opinion No. O-2142, we respeotfuliy advlre that in our opiniOA ?t iS Correct. 

Yours very truly 

BY (:.I 

vulri. J. It. KiAg 

bdsistant
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------



The Board of Directors
The Rouse Company:
 
 
 
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of The Rouse Company on Form S-3 (File Nos. 2-78898, 2-95596, 33-52458, 
33-57707 and 333-67137), Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-83612, 33-56231, 33-56233, 
33-56235 and 333-32277) and Form S-4 (File No. 333-01693) of our report dated
February 24, 1999, relating to the consolidated financial statements and related
schedules of The Rouse Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997
and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998,
which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Rouse Company for
the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
 
 
                                         KPMG LLP
 
 
 
Baltimore, Maryland
March 30, 1999
a complaint in order to institute a new civil action. See Jordan v. State at 

rel. Dep't of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 59, 110 P.3d 30, 

41-42 (2005) (recognizing that Nevada courts have the inherent "power to 

permanently restrict a litigant's right to access the courts"), abrogated on 

other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 121 Nev. 224, 

228 n.6, 181 P.3d 670, 672 n.6 (2008). In the application, appellant is 

required to state under oath (1) that he is in imminent danger of serious 

physical injury with supporting facts and legal authority demonstrating 

that the court could remedy the threat with legal action; (2) whether the 

claims had been raised in a previous case, and if so, to provide the case 

number and court where the claims had been raised; (3) that appellant 

had previously been declared a vexatious litigant in the Seventh Judicial 

District and to identify any other courts where he had been labeled a 

vexatious litigant; and (4) that the claims were not frivolous, not made to 

vex and annoy, and not brought in bad faith. 

In this case, appellant failed to submit an application 

containing the required information and did not otherwise provide the 

information required by the vexatious litigant order. On appeal, appellant 

largely restates the causes of action from his complaint, and he does not 

provide any grounds for this court to reverse the district court's dismissal 

of the complaint for failure to comply with the vexatious litigant order. 

While appellant also argues that, as an indigent person proceeding in 

forma pauperis, he is unable to produce the hundreds of copies required to 

comply with the vexatious litigant order, neither the court below nor the 

vexatious litigant order required appellant to submit any such documents. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 4e1) 
detrA tt,ter 

Douglas Cherry 

Thus, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's 

complaint for failure to comply with the vexatious litigant order. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Ac.,t g-et4.t\ J. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge 

Michael Steve Cox 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
No. 12-5613.

#### Adkins *v.*Johnson et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICHARD COX,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2013-3186

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT844E131600I1.

______________________ 

O R D E R

Richard Cox informs the court that he withdraws his 

petition for review of an initial decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board and that he seeks to proceed 

with his petition for review in this court.

Case: 13-3186 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2013
2 COX v. OPM

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Cox’s informal brief is due no later than 21 days 

from the date of this order.

(2) Cox must promptly move to dismiss his petition 

before the Board if he has not already done so.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk 

s25

Case: 13-3186 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2013
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 16217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8629]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Thrift Supervision
[AC-6; OTS Nos. H-2838 and 2999]


Rocky Ford Federal Savings and Loan Association, Rocky Ford, 
Colorado; Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on March 27, 1997, the Director, 
Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her designee, 
acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of 
Rocky Ford Federal Savings and Loan Association, Rocky Ford, Colorado, 
to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application 
are available for inspection at the Dissemination Branch, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the 
Midwest Regional Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 122 W. John 
Carpenter Freeway, Suite 600, Irving, Texas 75039-2010.

    Dated: April 1, 1997.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-8629 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30681 27-JAN-2012 08:25 AM
NO. SCWC-30681 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. STEPHEN P. FORMAN, also known as Brazil, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30681; CR. NO. 09-1-0987) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Stephen P. Forman’s application for writ of certiorari filed on December 21, 2011, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, January 27, 2012. Jefferson S. Willard on the application forpetitioner/defendantappellant. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
No. 12-6176.

#### Winkelman *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-44802) of our report dated
February 12, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and
1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
March 15, 1999
#### State v. Davis

111,844

03/28/2016

Denied.

Unpubhshed
# C_2020449EN.01034001.xml

| 23.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 449/340 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 449/340

---

P8_TA(2019)0088

EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore (07971/2018 — C8-0446/2018 — 2018/0093(NLE))

(Consent)

(2020/C 449/43)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07971/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07971/2018),

| — | having regard to the draft Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore (07972/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore (07972/2018),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 91, 100(2), 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0446/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 91, 100(2), 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0446/2018),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017 (1),

| — | having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 (2) on the draft decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 (2) on the draft decision,

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0053/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0053/2019),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Singapore. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Opinion of the Court of Justice of 16 May 2017, 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376.

(2)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0089.

---
# Table 4.4

# RSE 4.4

# Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx

# image1.emf

# Microsoft_Word_Document2.docx

# image2.emf
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** SECTOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DIVISION OFFICE OF AIR QUALIT Y PLANNING AND STANDARDS

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION December 14 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting notes for the September 26, 2011 meeting with Sierra Club and Earth

Justice FROM: Kelley

Spence John Bradfield TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2007
- 0544 This memorandum summarizes the meeting between Sierra Club and Earth Justice and the EPA on September 26, 2011. This meeting was requested in response to the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the pulp and paper industry
. **Meeting Attendees:** John Bradfield, EPA Scott Jordan, EPA Emma Cheuse, Earth Justice Marguerite McLamb, EPA Robin Dunkins, EPA Bill Schrock, EPA Chuck French, EPA Kelley Spence, EPA Eric Ginsburg, EPA Jane Williams, Sierra Club **Discussion Points :** 

 Progress report: Pulp and Papermaking RTR (Subpart S) o Approximately

350 surveys were distributed (ICR) o 100% response rate o Recent focus has been on the QC of the Part 2 database (NEI Update) o Risk modeling (input file preparation) o Schedule (management reviews in the next month)  Outreach commitments and Environmental Justice o Collected excess emission reports from states o EJ/Community

group outreach (national community c all, state and region community calls and contacts) o D emographic analys is using the risk model will determine if any EJ communities are affected b y industryo Earth Justice requested list of facilities and groups contacted (EPA sent 10/12/11)

o Tribal brochures were mailed to tribes

– 2 were interested in Pulp and Paper (EPA sent 3/15/11 )  Individual HAP data o Discussion of regulating HAPs individually o Discussion of control device outlet measurement s instead of assuming a % reduction in emissions  Site visits o Picked facilities for specific reasons (facility age, processes at the facility, etc.) o Interesting fact: one of the facilities had completely redone their kraft mill in response to the original NESHAP  Other questions and concerns o Only addressing Subpart S on December 15 th o Notice of the RTR be published on the national EJ list serve o Concerns regarding risk at malfunction and compliance margins o Discussion of monitoring data and Title V permits o Concerns regarding fugitive emissions and unregulated emission points