alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

The following table sets forth our historical ratios of earnings to fixed
charges for the periods indicated:

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          YEARS ENDED
                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1998         1999            2000          2001            2002              2003
                                    ---------    ----------       -------     -----------      ----------       -----------
<S>                                    <C>         <C>             <C>          <C>             <C>                  <C>
Pre-tax income (loss) from
     continuing operations .......     $38.7       $(34.2)         $74.1        $(594.8)        $(258.4)             $104.0
                                    =========    ==========       =======     ===========      ==========       ===========
Fixed charges:
     Interest expense ............      28.8          13.6          13.7            25.2            27.0               30.6
     Interest included in rental
     payments (1) ................       3.9           5.1           4.2             8.3             7.7                9.4
                                    ---------    ----------       -------     -----------      ----------       -----------
Total fixed charges ..............     $32.7         $18.7         $17.9           $33.5           $34.7              $40.0
                                    =========    ==========       =======     ===========      ==========       ===========

Pre-tax income (loss) from
     continuing operations plus
     fixed charges ...............     $71.4       $(15.5)         $92.0        $(561.3)        $(223.7)             $144.0
                                    =========    ==========       =======     ===========      ==========       ===========
Ratio of earnings to fixed
     charges .....................       2.2            --(2)        5.1              --(3)           --(4)             3.6
                                    =========    ==========       =======     ===========      ==========       ===========
</Table>


     (1)  Represents appropriate portion (1/3) of rentals.

     (2)  Due to the Company's loss in 1999, the ratio coverage was less than
          1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of $34.2 million to
          achieve a coverage of 1:1.

     (3)  Due to the Company's loss in 2001, the ratio coverage was less than
          1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of $594.8 million
          to achieve a coverage of 1:1.

     (4)  Due to the Company's loss in 2002, the ratio coverage was less than
          1:1. The Company must generate additional earnings of $258.4 million
          to achieve a coverage OF 1:1.
#### Charles B. Shipman, Appellant-Respondent, v. General Transistor Corp., Respondent-Appellant.

In an action to recover unpaid salary claimed to be due to plaintiff and to recover damages for defendant’s alleged breach of an employee stock option agreement, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 29‘, 1960: (1) plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of said order as denies his motion for summary judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice; and (2) the defendant appeals from said order insofar as it fails to grant summary judgment to defendant upon plaintiff’s said motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs. There are triable issues of fact presented which preclude the granting of summary judgment to either party. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. [22 Misc 2d 632.]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 46 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 46

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
                       flag of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2017

Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hatch, 
  Mr. Crapo, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Rubio) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
                       flag of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within 7 years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 873 

To amend section 8433 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for flexibility 

in making withdrawals from the Thrift Savings Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 4), 2017 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend section 8433 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide for flexibility in making withdrawals from the 

Thrift Savings Fund. 

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 ‘‘TSP Modernization 

5 Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL FLEXIBILITY. 

7 (a) POST-SEPARATION PARTIAL WITHDRAWALS.— 

8 Section 8433(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 873 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and who has 

2 not made a withdrawal under subsection (h)(1)(A) 

3 may make one withdrawal’’ and inserting ‘‘may 

4 make 1 or more withdrawals’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(5) Withdrawals under this subsection shall be sub7 ject to such other conditions as the Executive Director 

8 may prescribe by regulation.’’. 

9 (b) STOPPING PERIODIC PAYMENTS.—Section 

10 8433(d)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘change an’’ and inserting ‘‘re12 turn a payment that was made under’’; and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘a payment’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘such payment’’. 

15 (c) ELIMINATION OF WITHDRAWAL ELECTION

16 DEADLINE.—Section 8433(f) of title 5, United States 

17 Code, is amended— 

18 (1) by striking ‘‘(1) Notwithstanding’’ and in19 serting ‘‘Notwithstanding’’; and 

20 (2) by striking paragraph (2). 

21 (d) AGE-BASED IN-SERVICE WITHDRAWALS.—Sec22 tion 8433(h) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

23 (1) by striking paragraph (2); and 

24 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and 

25 (5) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 873 IS

1 (e) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

2 Section 8432b(h)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘section 8433(d), or paragraph (1) 

4 or (2) of section 8433(h)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (d) 

5 or (f) of section 8433’’. 

6 (f) REGULATIONS.—As soon as is administratively 

7 feasible, as determined by the Executive Director of the 

8 Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, the Execu9 tive Director shall prescribe regulations to carry out the 

10 amendments made by this section. 

11 (g) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.—The amend12 ments made by this section shall— 

13 (1) take effect on the date of enactment of this 

14 Act; and 

15 (2) apply on and after the effective date of the 

16 regulations prescribed under subsection (f). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
On September 10, 2013, OCR closed a complaint  against Rice University (Rice).  The  complaint alleged that Rice’s decision to change its prior race-neutral  admissions system by adding race and national origin as admissions factors for  the class entering in Fall 2004 violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of  1964.  OCR considered Title VI and its  regulations and case law interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, particularly  the Supreme Court’s decisions in *Grutter  v. Bollinger*, *Gratz v. Bollinger*,  and *Fisher v. University of Texas at  Austin*.In applying these standards, OCR found  that Rice’s decision to add race and national origin to its existing holistic  admissions process to continue to pursue its compelling interest in diversity –  an interest not yet satisfied at the university – did not violate Title  VI.  OCR determined that Rice’s consideration  of race-neutral alternatives met legal requirements, was thorough and  comprehensive, and that no workable race-neutral alternatives are currently  capable of producing, at Rice, the educational benefits of diversity sought by  the university.  Accordingly, OCR found  insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Rice violated Title VI and  its regulations with respect to the allegation raised in the complaint.   
     ***Read    the Resolution Letter***PDF (211K)
Top  Last Modified: 01/15/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    438715000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                        39682000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       4519000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                25497000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               508413000
<COMMON>                                      44583000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          109217000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               153800000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    3475000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         145540000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               205598000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                508413000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    140577000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                          10803000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   105560000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   116363000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                       24214000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              331000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                24545000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       8859000
<NET-INCOME>                                  15686000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     114000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                 15572000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       9796000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      8859000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        32101000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 720.9 Circumstances in which delivery is refused. ( a ) *Disciplinary proceedings pending.* When disciplinary proceedings involving military offenses are pending, commanding officers should obtain legal guidance from a judge advocate of the Navy or Marine Corps prior to delivery of members to Federal or State authorities.
( b ) *When delivery may be refused.* Delivery may be refused only in the following limited circumstances: ( 1 ) Where the accused has been retained for prosecution; or
( 2 ) When the commanding officer determines that extraordinary circumstances exist which indicate that delivery should be refused.
( c ) *Delivery under Detainers Act.* When the accused is undergoing sentence of a court-martial, see § 720.12.
( d ) *Reports required.* When delivery will be refused, the commanding officer shall report the circumstances to the Judge Advocate General by telephone, or by message if telephone is impractical. The initial report shall be confirmed by letter setting forth a full statement of the facts. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the regional coordinator.
OCR conducted a proactive  investigation of the West Contra Costa Unified School District to examine  whether the District responded promptly and effectively to sexual harassment of  students, including sexual violence, as required by Title IX of the Education  Amendments of 1972.  OCR’s investigation revealed that sexually harassing  student-on-student behavior permeated the educational environment at school  sites and that the district has not undertaken comprehensive school-wide or  district-wide initiatives sufficient to address it.  Evidence included  verbal and physical conduct by students, including sexual assaults, unwelcome  touching, demands for sexual favors, and the use of sexually derogatory  language that created a hostile environment at district schools.  OCR also  found that some students had been subjected to sexual harassment by  employees.  In addition, the District was not in compliance with the  procedural requirements of Title IX, which include adoption and publication of  grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of  complaints of sex discrimination and designation of at least one employee to  coordinate compliance with Title IX.  OCR determined that the District was  in violation of Title IX.  

On September 30, 2013, the  District entered into a Resolution Agreement to correct the compliance concerns  identified through OCR’s investigation.  Specifically, the District agreed  to: (1) designate a Title IX Coordinator; (2)  hire a consultant with expertise in the area of sexual harassment prevention  and training;  (3) revise its policies, procedures, and practices for  preventing, investigating, and remediating sexual harassment; (4) develop  guidance to help ensure the effectiveness of remedial actions; (5) conduct  annual assessments of the climate at District schools; (6) take interim  measures to ensure the safety of victims, reporting students and the school  community, address any ongoing harassment and prevent retaliation; (7) create a  task force of parents, students, community members and representatives of  community-based organizations to identify strategies to improve the school  climate and prevent sexual harassment;  (8) develop a comprehensive plan  for educating students, parents and employees about Title IX’s prohibition  against sex discrimination that takes into account the results of the climate  assessments and recommendations of the task force;  (9) increase  supervision of students at school sites and school-sponsored after-school  activities; (10) implement systems for  tracking reports of possible sexual harassment to ensure incidents are promptly  and impartially investigated and resolved; (11) assess the effectiveness of  District efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment; and (12) provide  periodic compliance reports to OCR during the three year term of the Resolution  Agreement.  OCR will monitor the District’s implementation of the  Resolution Agreement until at least July 1, 2016.

***Read  the Press Release | Read    the Resolution Letter*****PDF** (508K)    | ***Read the Resolution Agreement*****PDF** (152K)

 

Top
#### 222.1003-1 General.

For contracts having a substantial amount of construction, alteration, renovation, painting, or repair work, see 222.402-70.
#### 19.303 [Reserved]
Exhibit 23
                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




The Board of Directors
Mid-America Bancorp:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements No. 2-92270, No. 2-99495, and No. 33-42989 on Forms S-8
of Mid-America Bancorp of our report dated January 24, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Mid-America Bancorp
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996, which report appears in the 1996 annual report
to shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in the December
31, 1996 Form 10-K of Mid-America Bancorp.             

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for 
certain debt and equity securities in 1994.



Louisville, Kentucky               /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
March 24, 1997

<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Zurilla, Appellant, v. Criterion Shirtband Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Taylor, J.

On July 2, 1946 claimant, a dye cutter, sustained an occupationally caused herniated nucleus pulposus which was thereafter surgically removed. He returned to work in September, 1947 and has since *976continued in employment without reduction in wages. In October, 1952 upon a report of an examination made by a board physician claimant was found to have a permanent partial disability and the case was closed on the prior award “until there is a change in condition.” In March, 1962 upon medical evidence indicating the existence of a foot drop on the right side emanating from the surgical intervention the claim was reopened “ for further consideration of disability, treatment, schedule loss of use of the right foot and liability therefor.” Since claimant was not being treated and was performing his usual work without loss of time the case was again closed “ on prior findings and awards.” Upon his application the claim by an order of the board dated November 20, 1962 was rerestored to a Referee’s Calendar for the development of the record “ on the question of schedule loss of the foot and for a determination to be made on the completed record.” The medical evidence thereafter adduced by the parties was directed to the amenability of the disability to schedule evaluation and resulted in a finding by the Referee that claimant continued to have a permanent partial disability and that *“*the case cannot be scheduled.” Upon review a majority of the board affirmed. The instant appeal upon a shortened record followed. The record presents a question of fact with ample evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant’s injury is related to more than a partial loss of use of a member, a circumstance which we have held to interdict the availability of paragraphs d and s of subdivision 3 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law *(Matter of Baggetta*v. *Rosch Bros.,*2 A D 2d 620; *Matter of Elkowitz*v. *Tyrol Sportswear,*13 A D 2d 566; cf. par. [v]). Since claimant has suffered no loss of earnings other than those for which he has received full disability compensation, a consecutive schedule award would be impermissible in any event. *(Matter of Barbera*v. *Chez Vous Rest.,*20 A D 2d 942.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure 12. Prevalences of toxicopathic kidney lesions in white croaker captured at northern (A) and southern (B) sites in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). Prolif = proliferative lesions. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph and is indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Lesion prevalences significantly higher than those detected at the reference site (p < 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk (*). Figure 13. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver lesions in black croaker at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation.The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph and is indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Lesion prevalences significantly higher than those detected at the reference site (p < 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk (*). Figure 14. Prevalences of toxicopathic kidney lesions in black croaker at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). Prolif = proliferative lesions. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph and is indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Lesion prevalences significantly higher than those detected at the reference site (p < 0.05) are indicated by an asterisk (*).
#### Moye *v.*Paul.

April 18, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Worrill. Bandolph superior court. February »3, 1912.

' *M. C.. Edwards*and *R. L. Moye,*for plaintiff in error.

*James W. Harris,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

This ease is controlled by the decision in *Fortune*v. *Braswell,*ante, 609 (77 S. E. 818).

*Judgment reversed,.*

*All the- Justices eoneur.*
#### 213.101 General.

Structure awards valued above the micro-purchase threshold (*e.g.,* contract line items, delivery schedule, and invoice instructions) in a manner that will minimize the generation of invoices valued at or below the micro-purchase threshold.

[65 FR 46625, July 31, 2000]