alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                      THE CIT GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                    1998                1997
                                                                  --------            --------
<S>                                                               <C>                 <C>
Net income                                                        $  251.5            $  239.1

Provision for income taxes                                           138.0               137.5
                                                                  --------            --------

Earnings before provision for income taxes                           389.5               376.6
                                                                  --------            --------


Fixed charges:
  Interest and debt expense on indebtedness                          766.2               693.7
  Minority interest in subsidiary trust holding solely
   debentures of the company                                          14.4                11.5
  Interest factor - one third of rentals on
   real and personal properties                                        7.4                 6.7
                                                                  --------            --------

  Total fixed charges                                                788.0               711.9
                                                                  --------            --------


    Total earnings before provision for income
     taxes and fixed charges                                      $1,177.5            $1,088.5
                                                                  ========            ========


Ratios of earnings to fixed charges                                  1.49x               1.53x
                                                                  ========            ========
</TABLE>
#### Boston Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v. Carpinter & Baker, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered September 12, 1966, granting the motion of plaintiffs-respondents to restore this discontinued action to the Trial Calendar and to stay defendant-appellant from demanding arbitration, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs or disbursements to any party. Plaintiff insurance companies and defendant, an insurance agent, are parties to an agency agreement which provides in part that *“*any * * * difference of opinion or * * * interpretation of this Agreement * * * shall be submitted for arbitration to three disinterested executive officers of insurance companies ”. Such a dispute did arise but the parties originally waived the arbitration clause by proceeding to litigate the matter. However, when the case came to trial, the companies announced that they were prepared to submit *535the matter to arbitration. It should be noted that this decision was in accord with the spirit of the agreement which required the arbitrators to “ decide matters submitted to them upon the customs and usages of the business in a spirit of equity rather than of technicalities or of legal requirements.” Such a direction is, of course, best followed by arbitrators. At the request of the agent, the parties agreed upon five possible arbitrators and the court selected three individuals from this group to form a panel. The parties then stipulated through the court to discontinue the action and further, that “Neither party is giving up any of its rights [to arbitrate] by virtue of the fact that this suit had originally been instituted.” All three of the arbitrators selected then declined to serve in view of their personal friendships with the agent’s president. The agent invited the companies either to join with it in urging the three individuals to reconsider or to propose other persons who could serve, but the companies declined and brought on the present motion. While the parties originally waived the arbitration clause of the agreement by proceeding to litigation, this waiver was abrogated by their stipulation which was designed specifically for that purpose. The companies are in no way obligated to accept the services of the three admittedly partial arbitrators but the parties can agree on a new panel. Neither the original contract nor the agreement reached in court indicates that the particular arbitrators were chosen solely for their unique qualifications (cf. *Marcus*v. *Meyerson,*5 A D 2d 818). In view of the nature of the dispute and the original agreement, this case is peculiarly suited for arbitration. The parties should be able to agree on new arbitrators and if they cannot, either may apply to the court for appropriate relief (CPLR 7504). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
#### County of Monroe, Appellant, v Hanover Insurance Company et al., Defendants, and Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: On June 3, 1976 Albert Collins drove his automobile into a building owned by plaintiff County of *1037Monroe and caused $6,664 damages. The county has recovered a judgment against Collins for that loss and it now brings this action against the defendant insurers and defendant Liberti, demanding that they satisfy the judgment. Special Term granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Allstate Insurance Company and the county appeals. Defendant Liberti was formerly an agent of Allstate. In 1975 he obtained insurance for Collins with defendant Hanover Insurance Company through the assigned risk plan (see Insurance Law, § 63). In May, 1976 Collins asked Liberti to have the policy changed to cover a new automobile. Although Liberti had been notified that the Hanover policy had been canceled, he had apparently failed to note the cancellation in his file and he issued Collins an FS-76 insurance card listing Hanover as the insurer so that Collins could register the new vehicle. Liberti also accepted a payment of $25 from Collins which he forwarded to Hanover. Hanover cashed the check but later reimbursed Liberti, advising him that Collins’ insurance had been canceled for nonpayment of premiums in February, 1976. Liberti deposited the $25 check from Hanover in a special account which he maintained for assigned risks and he notified Collins to come in so that new insurance could be arranged for his vehicle. When Collins did not come to the office to do so, Liberti returned the $25 check to him in January, 1977. The county seeks to hold Allstate liable for the loss, claiming that Liberti was acting as its agent by holding the $25. It is clear that when he obtained insurance for Collins with Hanover Insurance Company and throughout these events, Liberti was acting as a broker as he was permitted to do by statute (Insurance Law, §§ 63, 121) and by his contract with Allstate. Since he was acting as a broker and placing insurance with a company that he did not represent, he was the agent of the insured, Collins, not Allstate (see *Wright v American Equit. Assur. Co.,*131 Misc 215, affd 223 App Div 877). He continued to act in that capacity when he received the $25 refund and placed it in his assigned risk account while attempting to arrange insurance for Collins with another company. Allstate never insured Collins, its agent Liberti never attempted to have it insure him and nothing in Liberti’s conduct serves to estop Allstate from denying coverage. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — summary judgment.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10443 

To amend title 28, to provide for a district court for the district of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2024 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, to provide for a district court for the 

district of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

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 ‘‘Article III Judicial 

5 Independence Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NEW JUDICIAL DISTRICT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 5 of title 28, United 

8 States Code is amended by inserting after section 114 the 

9 following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10443 IH

1 ‘‘§ 114a. Northern Mariana Islands 

2 ‘‘The Northern Mariana Islands constitutes one judi3 cial district. Court shall be held at Saipan.’’. 

4 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

5 for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item 

6 pertaining to section 114 the following: 

‘‘114a. Northern Mariana Islands.’’. 

7 SEC. 3. CONVERSION OF EXISTING COURT AND JUDGE. 

8 (a) COURT.—For purposes of establishing the district 

9 court under section 114a of title 28, United States Code, 

10 the facilities and property of the District Court for the 

11 Northern Mariana Islands under section 1 of the Act of 

12 November 8, 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821) shall be converted 

13 to the use of the court under such section 114a. 

14 (b) JUDGE.—The judge for the District Court for the 

15 Northern Mariana Islands under section 1 of the Act of 

16 November 8, 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821), as of the date of 

17 enactment of this Act shall be deemed to have been ap18 pointed as the judge for the district court for the Northern 

19 Mariana Islands under section 114a of title 28, United 

20 States Code. Such judge shall hold office during good be21 havior, pursuant to section 134 of title 28, United States 

22 Code. 

23 (c) REPEAL.—Section 1 of the Act of November 8, 

24 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821) is repealed. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 10443 IH

1 SEC. 4. JUDGES IN TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS. 

2 Section 373 of title 28, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the District 

5 Court of the Northern Mariana Islands,’’; and 

6 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘, the District 

7 Court of the Northern Mariana Islands,’’. 

8 SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY. 

9 The amendments made by this Act shall not affect 

10 the tenure of office or right to continue to receive salary 

11 after resignation, retirement, or failure of reappointment 

12 of any district judge for the district of the Northern Mar13 iana Islands who is in office on the date of enactment of 

14 this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### § 11.31 Public inspection and copying.

Section 1.5 of this title requires that certain materials be made available by each USDA agency for public inspection and copying in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(2). Members of the public wishing to gain access to these NAD records should write to the appropriate address shown in appendix A of this subpart.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 11570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03876]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 03/03-0248]


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company; 
Patriot Capital II, L.P.

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of 
the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the 
Small Business Investment Company License No. 03/03-0248 issued to 
Patriot Capital II, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and 
void.

United States Small Business Administration.
Thomas G. Morris,
Acting Associate Administrator, Director, Office of SBIC Liquidation, 
Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2021-03876 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### In the Matter of Love Russell J., Also Known as Love J. Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, Inc., et al., Respondents; Russell Stacey J., Also Known as Russell J., Also Known as Russel J., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of January Stacey J., Also Known as Januarie J., Also Known as January J. Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, Inc., et al., Respondents; Russell Stacey J., Also Known as Russell J„ Also Known as Russel J., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[776 NYS2d 859]

*800In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), both dated March 6, 2003 (one as to each child), as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he permanently neglected the children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that the petitioner Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, Inc. (hereinafter the agency), made diligent efforts to assist him in maintaining contact with the children and planning for their future *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]) by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, keeping him apprised of the children’s welfare, and repeatedly reminding him of the need to find a resource for the care of his children *(see Matter of Vedal Dural B.,*289 AD2d 574 [2001]; *Matter of Osuany G.,*186 AD2d 476 [1992]). Moreover, the finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the father, who was incarcerated, failed to plan for the children’s future, as he was unable to provide any “realistic and feasible” alternative to having them remain in foster care until his release from prison (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; *see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 143 [1984]; *Matter of Renelle S.,*288 AD2d 229, 230 [2001]; *Matter of C.*Children, 253 AD2d 554, 555 [1998]; *Matter of Carmen N.,*237 AD2d 607, 608 [1997]). The father was apprised that his sisters were not viable resources. Despite a warning from the agency of the consequences of failing to plan, the father did not suggest any other potential resources *(see Matter of Marcel F.,*212 AD2d 705, 706 [1995]). “[A]n incarcerated parent may not satisfy the planning requirement of the statute where the only plan offered is long-term foster care lasting potentially for the *801child’s entire minority” *(Matter of Gregory B.,*74 NY2d 77, 90 [1989]).

The finding that it was in the children’s best interests to be freed for adoption was supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 623, 631). Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
§ 1.135 Contents of complaint or petition for review. ( a ) *Complaint.* A complaint filed pursuant to § 1.133(b) shall state briefly and clearly the nature of the proceeding, the identification of the complainant and the respondent, the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the proceeding is instituted, the allegations of fact and provisions of law which constitute a basis for the proceeding, and the nature of the relief sought.
( b ) *Petition for review.* The Petition for Review of responsibly connected status shall describe briefly and clearly the determination sought to be reviewed and shall include a brief statement of the factual and legal matters that the petitioner believes warrant the reversal of the determination.
[42 FR 743, Jan. 4, 1977, as amended at 61 FR 11503, Mar. 21, 1996]
DEMAND NOTE

Date: March 1, 2017 




 


 On demand, BorrowMoney.com,
a Florida company, for value received, promises to pay to the order of Aldo Piscitello, whose address is 9935 Shore Road, Unit
6C, Brooklyn, NY 11209, the sum of Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00) together with interest thereon from the date
hereof until paid at the rate of 0% per annum. 


 


 In the event this note is not paid when
due, the undersigned shall pay all attorney’s fees and reasonable costs of collection. 


 





 NOTICE TO BORROWER: THIS IS A DEMAND
NOTE AND SO MAY BE COLLECTED BY THE LENDER AT ANY TIME. 




 





	 BorrowMoney.com,
    Inc., a New York Corporation 	   
	   	   	   
	 By:
     	   	   
	   	 Aldo
    Piscitello, President
Exhibit 32.1









CERTIFICATION









Pursuant to Sections 302 and 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Hai Yun Zhuang, Chief Financial Officer of YaSheng Group, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1. the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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









Dated: March 15, 2010










/S/ Hai Yun Zhuang
Hai Yun Zhuang

Chief Financial Officer
# •M-/3 ELECTRONIC RECORD CCA # 14-12-00745-CR 

### OFFENSE Manslaughter 

## STYLE: Isaac Cardale Lenseyv. The State of Texas COUNTY Harris

TRIAL COURT: TRIAL COURT#: 338th District Court 1311361 TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Judge, 338th Distrirt Court FOR REHEARING IS: DATE: MOTION

DISPOSITION: DATE: 

### JUSTICE:

_ PUBLISH: 

# Wsntdi pc/'s 

# 3fa

CLK RECORD: RPT RECORD: STATE BR: APP BR: DNP: 

### SUPP CLK RECORD 

# SUPPRPTRECORD fAJft
PRO SE BR 

# Mb m. IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# •fl<H3 ELECTRONIC RECORD 

## State. S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# date: 's4t>ril 16. 20/V JUDGE: P<Q* . MOTION FOR REHEARING IN ON 

### CCA IS:. JUDGE: 

### CCA# Disposition:. DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH: PC: DNP: MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: 

### ON JUDGE:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ev3 Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended July 3, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James M. Corbett,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: August 17, 2005 | /s/ James M. Corbett                  |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | James M. Corbett                      |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                       | (principal executive officer)         |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Quotron Systems v Ivan B. Irizarry et al.

Motion granted and this court, pursuant to CPLR 5713, states that questions of law have arisen which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lane, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HART, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Philip J. Hart.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted unless the appellant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of a copy of this order, together with notice of entry thereof, file and serve the printed papers on appeal, as provided by rule 41, in which event said motion is denied. -
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 OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

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)

# Report: 2015–16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16): Student Financial Aid Estimates

This publication provides the first results of the NPSAS:16, the most comprehensive nationally representative survey of student financing of postsecondary education in the U.S. It describes the percentages of students receiving various types of financial aid and average amounts received, by type of institution attended, attendance pattern, dependency status, and income level. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018466&utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=Reports