alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1



Paperweight Development Corp. and
Subsidiaries

Statement of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(unaudited)

(dollars in thousands)



|                                                  |  | (Predecessor Basis) |         | (Successor Basis) |      | (Successor Basis)
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | ------- | ----------------- | ---- | -----------------
|                                                  |  | 1998                |         |                   | 1999 |                  
|Net earnings from continuing operations           |  | $                   | 82,813  |                   |      | $                
|Add: Income tax expense                           |  |                     | 53,716  |                   |      |                  
|Add: Interest expense                             |  |                     | 60,215  |                   |      |                  
|Minority interest in net earnings of subsidiaries |  |                     | 5,493   |                   |      |                  
|Equity in net income of unconsolidated affiliates |  |                     | (7,313  | )                 |      |                  
|Portion of rent deemed interest factor            |  |                     | 3,878   |                   |      |                  
|                                                  |  |                     |         |                   |      |                  
|Total earnings available for fixed charges        |  | $                   | 198,802 |                   |      | $                
|                                                  |  |                     |         |                   |      |                  
|Fixed charges:                                    |  |                     |         |                   |      |                  
|Interest expense                                  |  |                     | 60,215  |                   |      |                  
|Portion of rent deemed interest factor            |  |                     | 3,878   |                   |      |                  
|                                                  |  |                     |         |                   |      |                  
|Total fixed charges                               |  | $                   | 64,093  |                   |      | $                
|                                                  |  |                     |         |                   |      |                  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                |  |                     | 3.1     |                   |      |                  
|                                                  |  |                     |         |                   |      |
#### Jennifer McCREARY, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE, Defendant.

No. 1:97CV163-S-D.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division.

May 20, 1998.

John A. Ferrell, Booneville, MS, for Plaintiff.

Robert G. Krohn, Price & Krohn LLP, Corinth, MS, for Defendant.

*ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION*

SENTER, Chief Judge.

This cause is before the court on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an endorsement to the life insurance policy at issue. In defendant’s view that endorsement, which calls for binding arbitration regarding “all disputes, claims, questions, and controversies of any kind or nature arising out of, or relating any way to, this policy, its subject matter, its negotiation, issuance, or termination,” is enforceable against plaintiff and requires a stay of these proceedings pending the completion of arbitration.

In response, plaintiff rightly points out that before arbitration can be compelled, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate their dispute. *See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,*473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). Because the arbitration clause at issue is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, “ ‘any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem ... is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.’” *Mitsubishi,*473 U.S. at 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346. The parties’ intentions nevertheless control though “those intentions are generously construed as to issues arbi-trability.” *Id.*

Even with these instructions in mind, this court has no hesitation in finding that the parties never agreed to arbitration and that plaintiff did not waive her right to seek *921adjudication of her claims in court. The application was the only document plaintiff ever signed; there is, of course, no mention in its contents of the arbitration endorsement. That endorsement is part of the insurance contract which plaintiff received upon completion of the application process. When plaintiff received the policy, she was given the option of “return[ing] it for any reason,” in which case, the policy was “void from the beginning_” There was no notice, no discussion, and no negotiation of the arbitration endorsement, circumstances, which, in this court’s view, hardly signify either agreement or waiver. The arbitration endorsement is therefore not enforceable, and this matter may proceed in this court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

That the motion to compel arbitration is denied;

That the stay previously imposed is hereby lifted for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.
(No. 1168

Claimant awarded $2,500.00.)

#### Harry Miller, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Non-liability of *state*— posse *comitatus. State not liable for injuries to member of.*This case is controlled by the decision of the court in the case of *Katanich*v. *State, supra.*

Robert E. Larkin, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, a police officer in and for the city of Streator, *381Illinois, on the 5th day of May, A. D. 1926, was called and notified to assist in capturing certain convicts who escaped from the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, Illinois. Miller responded to the request and encountered the convicts that night on the railroad tracks in said village. A gun battle commenced and a bullet hit the face of claimant about the-end of the upper jaw between the nose and ear traveling upward and backward and lodged in front of the spine behind the mouth and between the first and second vertebrae, the bullet is still lodged there, and it is not possible to remove the bullet'without-grave danger to claimant’s life and health. The bullet shot away the upper left second and third molars, took away a portion of the upper anterior of the first and second vertebrae. As a result of the bullet wound Mr. Miller has difficulty in speaking and in closing his jaws, and has some impediment of speech, pains through the neck region and intermittent headaches. Physicians testified that the injuries were permanent and may get worse, and it appears further from the evidence that claimant has continuous headaches and is obliged to quit work frequently.

The Attorney General comes and admits the facts to be fairly stated by claimant.

It must be admitted that there is no legal liability on the part of the State, however, it must be recognized that where an officer was commanded by superiors to enter upon the pursuit of. escaped convicts, that it was a hazardous undertaking and consequently as a matter of equity and good conscience the State should respond as far as practical to help a person like this claimant who bravely and, efficiently performed his duty in face of grave danger.

While as a matter of fact the court is impressed by the rules of equity and good conscience, yet it cannot be unmindful of the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and taking all the evidence and facts under consideration, the court recommends -that the claimant be allowed the sum of $2,500.00.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Premium Standard Farms,Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for thefiscal year 2006 ending March 25, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Stephen A. Lightstone, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge and belief:          (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           (2) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    result of operations of the Company.     /s/ Stephen A. Lightstone       Stephen A. Lightstone     Chief Financial OfficerMay 31, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Canadian Standards Association and CSA America, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 31, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Canadian Standards 
Association and CSA America, Inc. (``CSA'') have filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of 
business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature 
and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the names and principal places 
of business of the standards development organizations are: Canadian 
Standards Organization, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA and CSA America, Inc., 
Cleveland, OH. The nature and scope of CSA's standards development 
activities are: The development of voluntary consensus standards using 
procedures that incorporate the attributes of openness, balance of 
interests, due process, an appeals process, and consensus. The scope of 
standards developed by CSA include standards in the following subject 
areas: Basic Engineering, Building Products, Building Systems, 
Concrete, Factory Built Buildings and Mobile Homes, Masonry, Plumbing 
Products and Materials, Structures, Welding and Structural Metals, 
Wood, Electrical Installations, Electrical Consumer and Commercial 
Products, Electrical Industrial Products, Electrical Wiring Products, 
Electricity Distribution and Transmission Systems, Electrical 
Engineering, Electromagnetic Compatibility, Telecommunications, 
Information Technology, Energy Efficiency, Fuel Burning Equipment, Gas 
Equipment, Nuclear Power Plants, Oil and Gas Systems and Materials, 
Offshore Structures, Renewable Energy, Distributed Generation 
Technology, Environmental Management, Environmental Technology, 
Sustainable Forest Management, Community Safety and Well-being, Health 
Care, Occupational Health and Safety, Elevating Devices, Pressure 
Vessels, Transportation, Business Management and Quality Management.
    Additional information concerning CSA's standards development 
activities may be obtained by contacting Mr. RJ Falconi, Vice 
President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, CSA Group, 178 
Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON M9W 1R3 Canada, Telephone (416) 747-2722.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-22887 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 107.1240 Funding of Licensee's draw request through sale to short-term investor. ( a ) *Licensee's authorization of SBA to arrange sale of securities to short-term investor.* By submitting a request for a draw of Debenture or Participating Security Leverage, you authorize SBA, or any agent or trustee SBA designates, to enter into any agreements (and to bind you to such agreements) necessary to accomplish: ( 1 ) The sale of your Debenture or Participating Security to a short-term investor at a rate that may be different from the Trust Certificate Rate which will be established at the time of the pooling of your security;
( 2 ) The purchase of your security from the short-term investor, either by you or on your behalf; and
( 3 ) The pooling of your security with other securities with the same maturity date.
( b ) *Sale of Debentures to a short-term investor.* If SBA sells your Debenture to a short-term investor: ( 1 ) The sale price will be the face amount.
( 2 ) At the next scheduled date for the sale of Debenture Trust Certificates, whether or not the sale actually occurs, you must pay interest to the short-term investor for the short-term period. If the actual sale of Trust Certificates takes place after the scheduled date, you must pay the short-term investor interest from the scheduled sale date to the actual sale date. This additional interest is due on the actual sale date.
( 3 ) Failure to pay the interest constitutes noncompliance with the terms of your Leverage (see § 107.1810).
( c ) *Sale of Participating Securities to a short-term investor.* If SBA sells your Participating Security to a short-term investor, the sale price will be the face amount.
( d ) *Licensee's right to repurchase its Debentures before pooling.* You may repurchase your Debentures from the short-term investor before they are pooled. To do so, you must: ( 1 ) Give SBA written notice at least 10 days before the cut-off date for the pool in which your Debenture is to be included; and
( 2 ) Pay the face amount of the Debenture, plus interest, to the short-term investor.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 5868, Feb. 5, 1998]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,802
<SECURITIES>                                     6,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,275
<PP&E>                                           6,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,642)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,261
<COMMON>                                       108,868
<OTHER-SE>                                   (119,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,681
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   805
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,799)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.82)
        

</TABLE>
### §1300i–4. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 100–580, §5, Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2928; Pub. L. 101–301, §9(1), (2), May 24, 1990, 104 Stat. 210; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516, which related to the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Roll, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          37,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,886
<PP&E>                                          73,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,915,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,696
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,800,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,915,632
<SALES>                                         65,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,528
<CGS>                                           40,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,805
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 32,465
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .054
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .054


</TABLE>
#### Echo Bay Waterfront Corporation, Appellant, v. City of New Rochelle et al., Respondents.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 672.]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Bicycle between Point Lookout and Leonardtown, MD

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail
EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Skynet Telematics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Tomas George Wilmot, President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Tomas George Wilmot
------------------------
    Tomas George Wilmot
    President

April 30, 2007


<PAGE>
United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

The Genterra Group, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

Sanitas USA, Inc., Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 20-22402-Civ-Scola 

Order Adopting Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation 

Plaintiff the Genterra Group, LLC (“Genterra”) seeks a preliminary 

injunction against Defendant Sanitas USA Inc. (“Sanitas”) to prevent Sanitas 

from building, leasing, or contracting with any third party to build, develop, or 

lease any new medical facilities. (ECF No. 3.) The motion was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres for a report and recommendation. (ECF 

No. 29.) Judge Torres issued a report and recommendation, recommending that 

the Court deny the motion. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 48.) No objections were filed 

by either party nor were extensions filed to do so. 

The Court has considered—de novo—Judge Torres’s Report, the record, 

and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds Judge Torres’s report and 

recommendation cogent and compelling. Genterra has not advanced competent 

evidence that would justify entry of a preliminary injunction. Genterra has not 

demonstrated that Sanitas breached the agreement between them or that 

Sanitas used (or was even in possession of) Genterra’s proprietary information 

to develop new facilities. Therefore, Genterra has not shown a substantial 

likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. 

Accordingly, the Court affirms and adopts Judge Torres’s report and 

recommendation (ECF No. 48.) The Court denies the Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 3.) 

Done and ordered in chambers, at Miami, Florida, on February 19, 2021. 

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:20-cv-22402-RNS Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2021 Page 1 of 1