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


                   GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       (Unaudited)
                                                                     Six Months Ended
                                                                  -----------------------
                                                                  August 28,   August 23,
                                                                    2004         2003
                                                                  ----------   ----------
                                                                  (Dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                               <C>          <C>
Earnings:
  Income before income taxes                                      $  169,358   $  142,067
  Add:
    Interest on indebtedness                                           8,055        4,011
    Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates, net of
      dividends received                                                 908        (289)
    Minority losses                                                    1,518        1,578
    Portion of rents representative of the interest factor               657        3,222
    Amortization of capitalized interest                                 335          384
                                                                  ----------   ----------
      Adjusted earnings                                           $  180,831   $  150,973
                                                                  ==========   ==========

Fixed charges:
    Interest on indebtedness                                           8,055        4,011
    Portion of rents representative of the interest factor               657        3,222
    Capitalized interest                                                 320        1,080
                                                                  ----------   ----------
      Total fixed charges                                         $    9,032   $    8,313
                                                                  ==========   ==========

        Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                             20.02        18.16
                                                                  ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
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 HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, JeanPierre Dallaire, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer 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, to the best of his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 9, 2009



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire
|Jean-Pierre Dallaire    
|Chief Financial Officer
Rev 0 (9/08) 

## Com **ments i**  **n Response to “**  **Final r**  **ule; r**  **equest for c**  **om ments**  **” Docket:**  **FAA -**  **20 12**  **- 0037**  **Directorate Identifier 2012**  **- NM**  **- 003**  **- AD**  Comments have been received in response to : **“ Final rule; requ**  **est for comments,”** Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. Once you have made your determination, please fill in the com menter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, if necessary. Then **include your name and**  **the date**  in the spaces provided, and return it to the AD directorate focal. The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we re ceived from: One commenter (Anony

mous) requested that we revise the AD to address the reporting requirement. The service bulletin incorporated by reference, 84 - 24 - 52 has a reporting requirement in step (5) of accomplishment instructions. B, Porcedures, and the AD does not contain the required language for reporting as specificed in manual FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C. page 53. **(Please check on**  **e**

**)** These comments **have not** been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change of this AD. These comments **have** been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory

action. 

### (SEE Airworthiness Directives M **anual FAA**  **- IR** **- M**  **- 8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)** 

______ Assata Dessaline

_____ 04/26/2012

__ Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
#### Sigalit Sharabi, Respondent, v Lorraine Morales, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[806 NYS2d 602]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the apartment occupied by the defendant Lorraine Morales is not subject to rent stabilization, the defendant Lorraine Morales appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (E Rivera, J.), dated April 20, 2005, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action for a judgment declaring that the apartment she occupies is not subject to rent stabilization.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the cross motion *545which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action is denied.

In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that the appellant’s apartment is not subject to rent stabilization under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8625 [a] [4]), the appellant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the building in which the apartment was located had more than six units after 1974 and thus, was subject to rent stabilization. Accordingly, that branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action for a judgment declaring that the appellant’s apartment is not subject to rent stabilization should have been denied *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur. *[See*7 Misc 3d 1013(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 50580(U) (2005).]
# L_2020021DE.01003101.xml

| 27.1.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 21/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 21/31

---

Berichtigung des Verordnung (EU) 2019/2220 des Rates vom 19. September 2019 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1388/2013 zur Eröffnung und Verwaltung autonomer Zollkontingente der Union für bestimmte landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse und gewerbliche Waren

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 333 vom 27. Dezember 2019
  )

Auf dem Deckblatt, Inhaltsverzeichnis, und auf Seite 33, Titel:

Anstatt:

„Verordnung (EU) 2019/2220 des Rates vom 19. September 2019 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1388/2013 zur Eröffnung und Verwaltung autonomer Zollkontingente der Union für bestimmte landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse und gewerbliche Waren“

muss es heißen:

„Verordnung (EU) 2019/2220 des Rates vom 19. Dezember 2019 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1388/2013 zur Eröffnung und Verwaltung autonomer Zollkontingente der Union für bestimmte landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse und gewerbliche Waren“.

---
July 11, 2014 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Stratospheric Protection Division 

Attention: Rebecca von dem Hagen 

1310 L Street NW, 10th Floor (1027J) 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Ms. von dem Hagen: 

Reference: 

Please contact me if you have any questions about this submission or need further clarification. 

Via Federal Express
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          31,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  301,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,405)
<INVENTORY>                                    354,068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               728,169
<PP&E>                                       3,828,923
<DEPRECIATION>                               (851,674)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,446,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          437,948
<BONDS>                                        816,940
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,228,138
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,252,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,480,610
<SALES>                                        549,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               549,341
<CGS>                                          427,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  427,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kareem Jamell Prior, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 877]

Appeal from a judgment of thé Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered January 22, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) for causing physical injury to the victim by means of a dangerous instrument. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, that contention is without merit *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The victim testified that she has a permanent two-inch scar on her left earlobe, that the area remains painful and that she can no longer wear earrings *(see*Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; § 120.05 [2]). Although the object used by defendant may have been a cell phone or a box cutter, the object nevertheless became a dangerous instrument when defendant used it “in a manner which render[ed] it readily capable of causing serious physical injury” *(People v Carter,*53 NY2d 113, 116 [1981]; *see also*Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury is not properly before us. “It is well settled that, ‘when a judgment of conviction has been rendered based upon legally sufficient trial evidence, appellate review of a claim alleging insufficiency of Grand Jury evidence is barred’ ” *(People v Bastian,*294 AD2d 882, 883 [2002], *lv*
      *1077
      *denied*98 NY2d 694 [2002], quoting *People v Wiggins,*89 NY2d 872, 874 [1996]; *see*CPL 210.30 [6]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132352 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

WILLIAM MILLER, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 132352 

 COA: 259992 
 Wayne CC: 03-325030-NF

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant,

Cross-Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

PT WORKS, INC.,

Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether PT Works may 

properly be incorporated solely under the Business Corporations Act and not the 

Professional Services Corporations Act, and, once that determination is made, to 

reconsider (if necessary) whether physical therapy provided by PT Works was “lawfully 

rendered” under MCL 500.3157. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

t0321 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 28, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Bestform, Inc., Respondent, v Burton G. Herman et al., Defendants, and Century Business Credit Corporation, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 80]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered November 23, 2004, awarding plaintiff, after a nonjury trial, the principal sum of $300,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We affirm for the following reasons *(see Matter of American Dental Coop. v Attorney-General of State of N.Y.,*127 AD2d 274, 279 n 3 [1987]). Notwithstanding that defendant-appellant’s payment obligation was recited to be “conditioned upon” a confirmation by the buyer of plaintiffs merchandise that the goods shipped “conform” to the buyer’s purchase orders, the payment obligation was not subject to an express condition precedent that required strict compliance. The provision neither stated that such compliance was required nor set forth the consequences of noncompliance *(see Promo-Pro Ltd. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis,*306 AD2d 221 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 628 [2003]; *cf David Fanarof, Inc. v Dember Constr. Corp.,*195 AD2d 346, 347 [1993]). Evidence of industry practice did not contradict the terms of the agreement *(cf. Gordon & Breach Science Publs. v New York Sys. Exch.,*267 AD2d 52 [1999]) but merely improperly shed light on the meaning of “conform” in the agreement (s*ee News Am. Mktg., Inc. v Lepage Bakeries, Inc.,*16 AD3d 146, 148 [2005]). Moreover, the court properly construed the agreement to avoid a result that was absurd, commercially *254unreasonable and contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties *(see Matter of Lipper Holdings v Trident Holdings,*1 AD3d 170 [2003]). In addition, upon our own review of the record, we find that the court properly attributed the buyer’s conduct to defendant-appellant.

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
1 Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as responde nt pursuant to Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3884

___________ Aura Argentina Villeda, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 1 Attorney General, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: April 22, 2009 Filed: April 27, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Aura Villeda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeal s (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of Villeda’s application for asylum, withhol ding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Tortur e (CAT). We deny the petition.-2- Having reviewed the denial of asylum under the substantial-evidence standard,
see Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey , 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008), we uphold the BIA’s conclusion that Villeda neither suffered past persecution on account of a protected factor, see Quomsieh v. Gonzales , 479 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2007) (absent physical harm, incidents of harassment and unfulfilled threats of injury are not persecution), nor offered credible, specific evidence that a reasonable person in her position would fear persecution if returned to El Salvador, seeMakatengkeng v. Gonzales , 495 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir. 2007) (sta ndard for showing well-founded fear of future persecution); Vonhm v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2006) (violence against family members establishe s objective fear of future persecution only when there is pattern of persecution tied to petitioner); Setiadi v. Gonzales , 437 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 2006) (general fear based on isolated acts of violence against someone other than petitioner is usually insufficient); Menjivar v. INS , 259 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2001) (fear of persecution was not well founded because conditions in El Salvador markedly improved since 1992 peace accords).
Consequently, Villeda also failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal, and her CAT claim fails as well. See Alemu v. Gonzales , 403 F.3d 572, 576 (8th Cir. 2005) (when petitioner fails to meet lesser burden of proof for asylum, reviewing court must likewise uphold denial of claim for withholding of removal; separate analysis of CAT claim is only required when there is evidence that alien might be tortured for reasons unrelated to claims for asylum).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________
#### § 53.6151-1 Time and place for paying tax shown on returns.

The Chapter 42 tax shown on any return shall, without assessment or notice and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the time and place for filing such return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return). For provisions relating to the time and place for filing such return, see §§ 53.6071-1 and 53.6091-1. For provisions relating to the extension of time for paying the tax, see § 53.6161-1.
§ 1026.620 Due diligence programs for private banking accounts. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.620 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
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 Birch Branch, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Brasel,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director 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 the best of my
knowledge,:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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:           November
12, 2009





/s/Timothy
Brasel.


Timothy
Brasel


President,
Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
                       
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
September 30, 1995 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>               
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1996  
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-1995  
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1995  
<CASH>                                   230,564  
<SECURITIES>                                   0  
<RECEIVABLES>                         13,844,394  
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,012,000
<INVENTORY>                           20,631,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      40,402,376
<PP&E>                                 6,053,017   
<DEPRECIATION>                        12,767,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        54,960,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 27,643,807
<BONDS>                                        0  
<COMMON>                                 112,459    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0  
<PREFERRED>                                    0  
<OTHER-SE>                            24,420,356          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          54,960,938
<SALES>                               21,265,871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      21,265,871
<CGS>                                 12,727,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         12,727,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       340,449  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,314,535)  
<INCOME-TAX>                             394,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (920,535)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0  
<CHANGES>                                      0  
<NET-INCOME>                           (920,535)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0  
                                                   
                                  



</TABLE>