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

Central Power and Light Company
Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
For the Twelve Months Ended September 30, 2001 and Years Ended December 31

                       Twelve Months Ended
                        September 30, 2001        2000      1999      1998      1997      1996
                       --------------------     -------------------------------------------------
                                                           (thousands, except ratios)
<S>                          <C>                <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Operating Income             $311,180           $307,098  $293,985  $282,787  $251,319  $281,190
Adjustments
  Income Taxes                165,081             84,329    83,508   126,738    39,329    47,227
  Provision for
    Deferred Income
      Taxes                   (48,772)            16,263    19,938    (8,328)   34,458    49,076
Deferred Investment
      Tax Credits              (5,207)            (5,207)   (5,207)   (3,858)   (4,819)   (5,553)
Charges for Investments
      and Plant Development
      Costs, Net of Tax          -                  -         -         -       (1,281)  (15,569)
Other Income and Deductions     7,473              7,235     8,113       709     7,834     3,997
Allowance for Borrowed and
  Equity Funds Used During
  Construction                  8,003              6,216     4,532     2,822     3,778     1,845
                             --------           ------------------------------------------------
Earnings                     $437,758           $415,934  $404,869  $400,870  $330,618  $362,213
                             ========           ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

Fixed Charges:
  Interest on
   Long-term Debt            $ 92,170           $ 96,212  $ 87,413  $ 93,301  $105,081  $110,375
  Interest on
   Short-term Debt             27,901             22,830    19,498    19,506    20,613    18,494
  Distributions on Trust
   Preferred Securities        11,433             11,940    12,000    12,000     7,533      -
                             --------           --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
    Fixed Charges            $131,504           $130,982  $118,911  $124,807  $133,227  $128,869
                             ========           ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                  3.32               3.17      3.40      3.21      2.48      2.81
</TABLE>
Letter agreement regarding relocation arrangement with Anthony S. Piszel



 Exhibit 10(b) 
 August 25, 2009 
 Anthony S. Piszel 
 1 First American Way 
 Santa Ana, California 92707

 Dear Buddy: 
 Today our
Compensation Committee approved increasing the relocation allowance referred to in section 4.5 of your Employment Agreement by $100,000. You will be permitted to use the allowance during your employment with First American until it has been fully
utilized. 
 Additionally, the Committee approved expanding the category of relocation-related expenses that are reimbursable to you to include
all expenses directly attributable to your lease and/or ownership of the residences from which and to which you have relocated in connection with your employment, including reimbursement of rental payments, mortgage payments of principal and
interest, property taxes, utilities, maintenance, insurance and similar expenses directly associated with the lease or ownership of such residences. 
 In the event you voluntarily resign employment before the earlier of June 30, 2010 and the date we consummate our previously announced spin-off transaction, you agree to pay to First American whatever portion of this additional
$100,000 has been utilized (it being understood that amounts utilized shall be deemed to be first drawn on your original allowance and then on the additional $100,000 allowance). 
 If you are in agreement with this arrangement, please so indicate by signing below. 
 Very truly
yours, 
  

	
	 /s/    Parker S. Kennedy

	Parker S. Kennedy
	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

 The First American Corporation 
 Acknowledged and Agreed: 
  

	
	 /s/    Anthony S. Piszel

	Anthony S. Piszel
#### Modesto “Mario” Chinosi et al., Respondents, v Gilbert J. Kringstein et al., Defendants, and Mark Coffiner et al., Appellants.

[776 NYS2d 490]

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, etc., the defendants Mark Coffiner and Endodontic Associates at Hanson Flace, EC., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated April 15, 2003, which denied their motion pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants made out a prima facie case that their treatment of the plaintiff ended on April 10, 1998, rendering this action, which was commenced November 14, 2000, untimely as to them (see CPLR 214-a; *Gravel v Cicola,*297 AD2d 620 [2002]; *cf. Savarese v Shatz,*273 AD2d 219, 220 [2000]; *Siegel v Wank,*183 AD2d 158, 159 [1992]). In response to that showing, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a course of continuous treatment by all of the defendants, including the appellants, extending through at least May 20, 1998, the last time the appellant Dr. Mark Coffiner actually saw the plaintiff Modesto “Mario” Chinosi. If continuous treatment is found, the action would be timely as to the appellants. Thus, the motion was properly denied (see *generally Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group,*88 NY2d 904, 907 [1996]; *McDermott v Torre,*56 NY2d 399, 403, 407-408 [1982]; *Polokoff v Palmer,*190 AD2d 897, 898-899 [1993]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### 703.104-7 Violations or possible violations.

Requests for concurrence under paragraph (a)(1) of (48 CFR) FAR 3.104-7 must be forwarded to one level above the contracting officer.

[79 FR 74991, Dec. 16, 2014]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Springtime: A Good Time to Think About Our Kids and Steroids      

# Springtime: A Good Time to Think About Our Kids and Steroids

This blog post was written by Don Hooten, president of the Taylor Hooton Foundation, an advocacy group that raises awareness about the dangers of young people’s use of appearance- and performance-enhancing drugs (APED). It describes the prevalence and perception of APED use among youth and shares the story of Hooten’s son Taylor, who died after using anabolic steroids. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/18/springtime-good-time-think-about-our-kids-and-steroids
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Downing, Appellant.

[777 NYS2d 480]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered October 18, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree and two counts of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The failure of the prosecution to disclose to the defense the complainant’s true name does not require reversal under *Brady v Maryland*(373 US 83 [1963]), since there was no reasonable possibility that the jury would have decided the issues of fact differently had defendant given them this information *(see People v Vilardi,*76 NY2d 67, 77 [1990]). Defense counsel *463extensively impeached complainant’s credibility through other background factors, including her lengthy criminal record. Had the defense revealed that the name she gave at trial differed from the legal name she gave in connection with certain of her arrests, the impact of this discrepancy would not have changed the outcome under these circumstances (see *People v Sibadan,*240 AD2d 30, 35 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 861 [1998]). For the same reason, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, in which he alleged that the complainant’s true name constituted newly discovered evidence (CPL 330.30 [3]).

Defendant’s various hearsay claims are unpreserved *(see e.g. People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 720 [1981]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that even if some of the challenged statements by the complainant exceeded the scope of the prompt outcry and excited utterance exceptions, the error in admitting these declarations was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Geneva  Gold  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Marcus Johnson, Chief Executive Officer/President of the Company and I, D. Bruce
Horton, Chief Financial  Officer/Treasurer 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, to my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: January 12, 2007              By: /s/ MARCUS JOHNSON
                                        _________________________________
                                            Marcus Johnson
                                            Chief Executive Officer/President


Date: January 12, 2007              By: /s/ D. BRUCE HORTON
                                        _________________________________
                                            D. Bruce Horton
                                            Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer
### NO **X**

### Em**ission Control Option: Low**  **NO X** 

### Main Burner

**TOTAL CAPITAL COST , TCC TOTAL ANNUAL COST**  **COST EFFECTIVENESS**

Purchased Equipment Costs (PEC) $824,614.69 **Direct Annual Costs** Engineering $522,921.80 Controls Operating Labor $22,764.42 Total Annual Costs 765,048.06 $ Other Maintenance Labor $45,528.84 Baseline Nox (TPY) 2829.5 Maintenance Materials $50,000.00 NOx after Technology Application 1095 Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Electricity $110,000.00 NO Xremoved (TPY) 1,734.5 Premium for Expedited $0.00 Total Direct Annual Costs $228,293.26 Total FOB $1,347,536.49 Sales Tax $0.00 **Cost Efficiency:** Freight & Insurance $0.00 **Indirect Annual Costs $/ton NO**  **X removed**  **$441** Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Overhead $70,975.96 Property Tax $0.00 Direct Installation Costs (DIC) $1,411,365.16 Insurance $28,464.23 Administrative Charges $142,321.13 Total Direct Cost (DC=PEC+DIC) $2,758,901.65 Capital Recovery $294,993.49 Total Indirect Annual Costs $536,754.80 Indirect Installation Costs (IIC) $87,521.01

Contingencies (C) $0.00 

### Line 6 Indurating Furnace - 60% Coal/40% Natural Gas Fuel Mix **U. S. Steel Minntac Mountain Iron, MN** 

Total Indirect Cost (IC=IIC+C) $87,521.01

**TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT, TCI (DC+IC) $2,846,422.66**  **TOTAL ANNUAL COST, TAC $765,048** 

1 of 1

### NO **X**

### Em**ission Control Option: Low**  **NO X** 

### Main Burner

**TOTAL CAPITAL COST , TCC TOTAL ANNUAL COST**  **COST EFFECTIVENESS**

Purchased Equipment Costs (PEC) $824,614.69 **Direct Annual Costs** Engineering $522,921.80 Controls Operating Labor $22,764.42 Total Annual Costs 765,048.06 $ Other Maintenance Labor $45,528.84 Baseline Nox (TPY) 4520.2 Maintenance Materials $50,000.00 NOx after Technology Application 876 Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Electricity $110,000.00 NO Xremoved (TPY) 3,644.2 Premium for Expedited $0.00 Total Direct Annual Costs $228,293.26 Total FOB $1,347,536.49 Sales Tax $0.00 **Cost Efficiency:** Freight & Insurance $0.00 **Indirect Annual Costs $/ton NO**  **X removed**  **$210** Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Overhead $70,975.96 Property Tax $0.00 Direct Installation Costs (DIC) $1,411,365.16 Insurance $28,464.23 Administrative Charges $142,321.13 Total Direct Cost (DC=PEC+DIC) $2,758,901.65 Capital Recovery $294,993.49 Total Indirect Annual Costs $536,754.80 Indirect Installation Costs (IIC) $87,521.01

Contingencies (C) $0.00 

### U. S. Steel Minntac **Mountain Iron, MN Line 6 Indurating Furnace - 100% Natural Gas** 

Total Indirect Cost (IC=IIC+C) $87,521.01

**TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT, TCI (DC+IC) $2,846,422.66**  **TOTAL ANNUAL COST, TAC $765,048** 

1 of 1

# $522,921.80 Engineering

824,614.69 Equipment 1,411,365.16 Installation $2,758,901.65 Total Capital 68,172.60 Relocation/Spending 19,348.41 Demo $2,846,422.66 Total Project Spending **MOO-Minntac Line 6 Low** **NOx Kiln Burner Spending Summary**
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  Quarterly  Report  of  AmBase  Corporation  (the
"Issuer")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Ferrara, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer,  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 repects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



/s/ John P. Ferrara
--------------------------------------------------
John P. Ferrara
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Chief Financial Officer)
AmBase Corporation
August 12, 2005
<PAGE>

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chicago Rivet & Machine
Co. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael J. Bourg, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

      (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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Michael J. Bourg
---------------------------------------
Name: Michael J. Bourg
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 13, 2007

                                       19
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-60068 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

MARJORIE A. HANSEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the decision of the United States Tax Court

(93 5495)

______________________________________________________
September 18, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: 1

The taxpay er, Marjorie Hansen, challenges the Tax Court’s

order denying her theft loss deduction which she claimed on her

1988 federal income tax return.

A b urglary occurred in the Hansen residence in 1988 and

jewelry was stolen. Taxpayer's husband was reimbursed for some of

the stolen items by his insurer. In taxpayer’s 1991 return, she

claimed a theft l oss for a number of items including some of the2

items for which her husband was reimbursed. Petitioner did not

produce receipts for the items reported on her return, however, she

sought to establish the cost of some of these items by her oral

testimony. Petitioner also produced receipts for additional items

of jewelry she now claims were also stolen in the burglary.

The Tax Court did no t find the petitioner’s testimony

credible. It was not persuaded that the items not listed on the

return were stolen. The Tax Court was entitled to make this

credibility call and we will not disturb it.

As to the claimed items, petitioner presented no evidence of

the fair market value of these items. While the Tax Court had

considerable latitude in estimating fair market value of the items

from their cost,it was not obliged to do so. S ee Williams v.

United States , 245 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1957).

For the above reasons, the judgment of the Tax Court is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Lawrence J. Boysen, Acting Chief Financial Officer of CNA Financial Corporation, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CNA Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Dated: October 29, 2004 By  /s/ Lawrence J. Boysen    **Lawrence J. Boysen **   **Acting Chief Financial Officer **
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00700

- CV

M. L. , Appellant

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY NO. CV40855 , THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant M. L. filed her notice of appeal on November 1, 2022 . The appellate
record was complete on November 21, 2022 , making appellant’s brief originally due on
December 12, 2022

. On December 28, 2022, counsel for app e llant filed a seco nd motion for
extension of time to file appellant ’ s brief. Subsequently
, o n January 4, 2023, this court granted
appellant ’ s motion to withdrawal and for substit ution of n ew cou nsel.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the fi n al disposition of appeals
from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days
for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting

extensions. In this instance
, we will grant the motion and order Maria Pe ñ a to file appellant’s

brief no later than January 30, 2023 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be
required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.2 It is ordered on Janu a r y 1 2 , 2023

.

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith
#### 9905.502-10 [Reserved]