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


               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                     (dollars in thousands, except ratio)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       1992        1993         1994         1995         1996
                                                       ----        ----         ----         ----         ---- 
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Earnings:                                                                                            
     Income before income taxes                       $4,581      $ 7,883      $14,367      $22,263      $31,231
                                                                                                     
     Fixed charges                                     3,956        2,470        2,572        4,698        8,792
                                                      ------      -------      -------      -------      -------
                     
          Earnings                                     8,537       10,353       16,939       26,961       40,023
                                                      ------      -------      -------      -------      -------

Fixed Charges:
     Interest expense/1/                               1,433        1,549        1,204        2,714        6,365 

     Amount of pretax earnings required to  
          cover preferred stock dividends              2,075           --           --           --           --
                                                                                                     
     Portion of rent expense representative of         
          an interest factor                             448          921        1,368        1,984        2,427
                                                      ------      -------      -------      -------      -------

          Fixed charges                               $3,956      $ 2,470      $ 2,572      $ 4,698      $ 8,792
                                                      ------      -------      -------      -------      ------- 

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     2.16x        4.19x        6.59x        5.74x        4.55x
                                                      ======      =======      =======      =======      ======= 
</TABLE>

/1/ Interest expense includes the amortization of debt issuance costs.
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934
 

I, Hamsa Shadaksharappa, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. (the"registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:	November 11, 2003	
/s/ Hamsa Shadaksharappa	

Hamsa Shadaksharappa

Senior Vice President - Financial Services, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2700 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2700

    To suspend implementation of an Absolute Priority issued by the 
                Department of Education on July 3, 2006.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2007

 Ms. Shea-Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend implementation of an Absolute Priority issued by the 
                Department of Education on July 3, 2006.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,  That the Secretary of 
Education shall immediately suspend enforcement of the Notice of Final 
Priority published at 71 Federal Register 55447 (Sept. 22, 2006), 
including the evaluation described therein, until that priority is 
expressly authorized by statute.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022074EN.01000501.xml

| 15.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 February 2022

(2022/C 74/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1316 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4411 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83720 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6158 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0472 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 142,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0693 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,527 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 357,06 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5400 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9457 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,3510 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5902 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4431 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8283 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7112 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5247 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 354,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,1310 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1937 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5293 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 190,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7420 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,114 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,3480 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,800 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,8965 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,1331 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,4715 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1316

JPY

Japanese yen

130,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4411

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83720

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6158

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0472

ISK

Iceland króna

142,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0693

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,527

HUF

Hungarian forint

357,06

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5400

RON

Romanian leu

4,9457

TRY

Turkish lira

15,3510

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5902

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4431

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8283

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7112

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5247

KRW

South Korean won

1 354,50

ZAR

South African rand

17,1310

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1937

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5293

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 190,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7420

PHP

Philippine peso

58,114

RUB

Russian rouble

86,3480

THB

Thai baht

36,800

BRL

Brazilian real

5,8965

MXN

Mexican peso

23,1331

INR

Indian rupee

85,4715

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
EXHIBIT 10.4

              SUPPLEMENT TO STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT

     Amendment No. 1 dated as of October 29, 1997 to the
Stockholders' Agreement dated as of March 12, 1993 (the
"Stockholders' Agreement") among Norton Garfinkle, The G/N
Garfinkle Trust, Bruce F. Failing, Jr., The Failing Trust, and
Elizabeth Z. Failing.

                      W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to the Stockholders'
Agreement whereunder they have agreed to certain rights and
restrictions with respect to the common stock, $.01 par value, of
Electronic Retailing Systems International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), held thereby, as well as certain other
obligations with respect to the Company; and

     WHEREAS, the Company is contemporaneously herewith entering
into a combination agreement dated this date (the "Combination
Agreement") with Telepanel Systems Inc., pursuant to Section 4.15
of which certain corporate governance arrangements are contemplated
effective at the Effective Time (as defined thereunder); and

     WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Combination Agreement,
effective at the Effective Time, the parties hereto desire to
modify certain terms of the Stockholders' Agreement in accordance
with this Amendment No. 1;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto hereby agree
as follows:

1.   Effective at the Effective Time and until the second
     anniversary thereof, section 5 of the Stockholders' Agreement
     is hereby amended by deleting the references to "7" and "6"
     therein and inserting in lieu thereof references to "9" and
     "5", respectively.

2.   Except as set forth or amended herein, the Stockholders'
     Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, without
     waiver of or abridgment of any rights of any party, and
     continue to bind the parties hereto.

3.   This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which
     shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which taken
     together shall constitute one and the same agreement.






<PAGE>
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment
No. 1 as of the date first above written.

                                   GARFINKLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I

                                   By: G.F. Management Corp.


s/Norton Garfinkle                 By s/Norton Garfinkle
---------------------------          -----------------------------
Norton Garfinkle

THE G/N GARFINKLE TRUST            GARFINKLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II

                                   By: G.F. Management Corp.


By s/Norton Garfinkle              By s/Norton Garfinkle
  -------------------------          -----------------------------
  Norton Garfinkle, Trustee


s/Bruce F. Failing, Jr.
---------------------------
Bruce F. Failing, Jr.


THE FAILING TRUST


By s/Leigh Q. Failing
  -------------------------
  Leigh Q. Failing


By s/Elizabeth F. Failing
  -------------------------
  Elizabeth F. Failing


s/Elizabeth Z. Failing
---------------------------
Elizabeth Z. Failing
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER HOLLIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-91-116, CA-98-305-1)

Submitted: April 13, 2001 Decided: April 30, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chauncey Alexander Hollis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander

Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Hollis states in his informal brief filed in this court that

he seeks to appeal the order granting § 2241 relief. Although

Hollis’ informal brief could be construed as a notice of appeal,

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), the brief was filed well

beyond the applicable appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment

and express no opinion as to its validity.

2

PER CURIAM:

Chauncey Alexander Hollis appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Hollis sought reconsideration of the court’s order granting relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), and vacating his conviction for

using or carrying a firearm in light of Bailey v. United States,

516 U.S. 137 (1995),* on the grounds that the court should have

resentenced him on his conspiracy conviction and that counsel

provided ineffective assistance at the original sentencing hearing.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying Hollis’ Rule 60(b) motion and find no abuse of discretion. CNF

Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 & n.2

(4th Cir. 1995) (finding that where Rule 60(b) motion seeks reconsideration of legal issues, motion is not authorized by Rule 60(b),

and rejection of motion is not an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of reconsideration on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Hollis, Nos. CR-91-116; CA98-305-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2328 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2328

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain local 
restrictions from review under the airport noise and access restriction 
                            review program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2007

   Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Engel, and Mr. 
    Shays) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain local 
restrictions from review under the airport noise and access restriction 
                            review program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AIRPORT NOISE AND ACCESS RESTRICTION REVIEW PROGRAM.

    Section 47524(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5)(B);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) a local restriction limiting the hours of operation 
        of a publicly-owned airport maintained by the owner of the 
        airport, if the owner had previously maintained a local 
        restriction limiting the hours of operation of the airport that 
        was disallowed by a court before 1985, and the owner has--
                    ``(A) without interruption since 1985, maintained a 
                policy of encouraging voluntary limitation of the hours 
                of operation of the airport;
                    ``(B) without interruption since 1985, imposed 
                restrictions limiting the capacity of the airport 
                terminal; and
                    ``(C) developed and implemented an environmental 
                management system that is certified as conforming to 
                the International Standards Organization 14001 
                Environmental Management System Standard.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1010.106 Table of contents. ( a ) The second page(s) shall consist of a Table of Contents which lists the headings in the Property Report, the major subheadings, if any, and the page on which they appear. An example is set forth in section XI of the appendix to this part: Sample Entry in Table of Contents for Statement of Record.
( b ) *Use of “You” and “We.”* At the end of the Table of Contents insert the following remark: “In this Property Report, the words “you” and “your” refer to the buyer. The words “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the developer.”
OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC.                                   Exhibit 10.09
2000 BONUS AWARD PLAN

The 2000 Bonus Award Plan is approved by the Company's Board of Directors and
administered by its Compensation Committee. Individuals who are nominated and
approved for inclusion in the Plan will be reviewed after final year end results
are completed. Recommendations for cash bonus awards will be based on the
accomplishment of results (Individual, Profit Center and Total Company) in order
to determine the amount of award, if any, to be made. People must be amongst the
nominated group for eligibility, and be employed by the Company at the time of
funding. Bonuses will be earned when paid. Individuals, as designated, will be
subject to a maximum bonus eligibility of 10% - 100% of current base salary.

The 2000 Bonus Award Plan is based on achieving specific results by the
Individual, his Profit Center and the Total Company. In order to integrate each
of these performances in a fashion that benefits the Shareholders and Employees,
each item is interrelated. The amount of award recommendation will be based on
the following methodology:

Individual Coefficient

The Individual Coefficient is determined by taking the individual's weighted
average evaluation of objectives achieved times the individual's salary maximum.
This is the beginning step in determining the final award. An individual's
performance must meet certain minimum criteria or he is eliminated from bonus
award consideration.

Profit Center Results Contribution

The Profit Center Contribution is determined by comparing the Profit Center Net
Income Objective with the results achieved and determining the Contribution to
the Individual Coefficient.

Should the Profit Center results be below a specified amount, all the
individuals in that Profit Center may be eliminated from the Award Program. The
President may review the performance of areas within the region on a
case-by-case basis and take appropriate action. Should the actual results be
equal to or greater than such specified amount, the individual becomes eligible
for an award.

Oceaneering International, Inc. Results Contribution

The Company Results Contribution is determined by comparing the Company's FY00
Net Income Result with the Objective planned. The results achieved determine the
multiplier that will be used. Thus, an individual may, subject to the determined
maximum, be recommended for an award equal to the Individual Coefficient times
the Profit Center Contribution times the Company Results Contribution times
current base salary.
<PAGE>
The 2000 Bonus Award Plan is in effect FY00. A similar plan may or may not be
approved for FY01. It is extremely important that the Company continue improved
results in FY00. All participants must be committed to a reward system based on
achieving results. The Company is entrepreneurially oriented and must use its
maximum creativity, effort and determination in achieving individual results
that collectively increases its Shareholders' Net Wealth. The 2000 Bonus Award
Plan is structured to foster that position.

June 17, 1999
#### § 1215.15 Conflicting court order.

Notwithstanding FHFA's rejection of a demand for records, information, or testimony, if a court or other competent authority orders an FHFA employee to comply with the demand, the employee must promptly notify FHFA's General Counsel of the order, and the employee must respectfully decline to comply, citing *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951). An employee's failure to notify the General Counsel of a court or other authority's order is grounds for discipline or other adverse action.
#### § 1071.202 Documentation of fees and expenses.

The application shall be accompanied by full documentation of the fees and expenses incurred after initiation of the adversary adjudication, including the cost of any study, engineering report, test, or project for which an award is sought. With respect to a claim for fees and expenses involving an excessive demand by the Bureau, the application shall be accompanied by full documentation of the fees and expenses incurred after initiation of the adversary adjudication, including the cost of any study, engineering report, test, or project for which an award is sought attributable to the portion of the demand alleged to be excessive and unreasonable. A separate itemized statement shall be submitted for each professional firm or individual whose services are covered by the application, showing the hours spent in connection with the proceeding by each individual, a description of the specific services performed, the rate at which each fee has been computed, any expenses for which reimbursement is sought, the total amount claimed, and the total amount paid or payable by the applicant or by any other person or entity for the services provided. The adjudicative officer may require the applicant to provide vouchers, receipts, or other substantiation for any expenses claimed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT NELLIE M. NORMAN, Petitioner

v.
HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND JENNIFER TOBEY, M.D., AND BRIAN CZERNIECKI, M.D., Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 386 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.