alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Earnings      to Fixed Charges          |   |     |     |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|----------|----------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                    |   |     |     |   |   |   |
|                                    |   | 10/1/05- | 2/17/06- |   |   |   |
|                                    | 2005   | 2/16/06  | 09/30/06 | 2007   | 2008   | 2009   |
| Earnings:                               |   |     |     |   |   |   |
| Income      (loss) before taxes         | 47.8   | 19.3     | -51.1    | -207.5 | -150.3 | -28.3  |
| Interest                                | 16.7   | 7.6      | 46.5     | 237.6  | 261.7  | 244.5  |
| Interest      portion of rental expense | 3.4    | 0.9      | 2.2      | 14.7   | 19.4   | 18.8   |
|                                    | 67.9   | 27.8     | -2.4     | 44.8   | 130.8  | 235.0  |
|                                    |   |     |     |   |   |   |
| Fixed      Charges:                     |   |     |     |   |   |   |
| Interest                                | 16.7   | 7.6      | 46.5     | 237.6  | 261.7  | 244.5  |
| Interest      capitalized               | 0.0    | 0.0      | -0.6     | -1.5   | -2.3   | -2.4   |
| Interest      portion of rental expense | 3.4    | 0.9      | 2.2      | 14.7   | 19.4   | 18.8   |
|                                    | 20.1   | 8.5      | 48.1     | 250.8  | 278.8  | 260.9  |
|                                    |   |     |     |   |   |   |
| Ratio                                   | 3.4    | 3.3      | 0.0      | 0.2    | 0.5    | 0.9    |
|                                    |   |     |     |   |   |   |
| Shortfall      (overage)                | -47.8  | -19.3    | 50.5     | 206.0  | 148.0  | 25.9   |
|                                    |   |     |     |   |   |   |
#### Wayne County Produce Company, Respondent, *v.*Gordon-O'Neill Company, Inc., Appellant.

Argued April 28, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*557
      *Samuel Gottlieb*and *Sidney Gondelman*for appellant.

*Edmond B. Butler*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 40391 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Branon Romez Ware,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:18

- CR

- 37

- 12

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Branon Romez Ware challenges his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine near a playground in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 860(a). For the first time on appeal, he argues that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea beca use there was an

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 11, 2021 Lyl e W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40391 Document: 00515974971 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2021No. 20

- 40391

2 inadequate factual basis showing that his offense occurred near a playground

as that term is defined in § 860(e) (1)

. Ware did not object to the lack of a factual basis for his plea in the district court , so his claim is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Ortiz , 927 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Absent a defendant’s objection in the district court, this court reviews the factual basis of a guilty plea for plain error.”). To meet the four prongs of plain error, Ware must show (1) the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea without a factual basis; (2) the error was plain; (3) there is a reasonable probability that but for the error, he would not have pleaded guilty; and (4) the error serio usly affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the proceedings. United States v. Sanchez

Hernandez , 931 F.3d 408, 410 (5th Cir. 2019). Ware cannot meet any of these requirements. He signed a factual basis that provided: “I agree and stipulate that this transaction took place within 1000 feet of the real property comprising Herschell Beck Municipal Park, a public park containing a playground.” That matches the “playground” element found in § 860(a), and therefore, the district court did not err . Even if the district court did err, any error was not plain because Ware cites no legal authority to show that a factual basis must include the definition of a “playground” in § 860(e)(1 )

— nor does Ware contest that Herschell Beck Municipal Park’s playgro und in fact satisfies that definition. And in all

events , Ware has not show n that there is a “ reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Jones , 969 F.3d 192, 199 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United Sta tes v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)). These failures preclude a finding of plain error. See id

. ; Sanchez

- Hernandez , 931 F.3d at 410.

AFFIRMED. Case: 20-40391 Document: 00515974971 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
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 Annual Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Becky Corigliano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.



/s/ Becky Corigliano



Date:  June 21, 2005

Becky Corigliano

Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### §§ 4907.112-4907.129 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart A of part 5 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### §§ 5.3-5.4 [Reserved]
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Fr.om: c. 

serit: 

To: 

Subject: 

'\'<"";: 

Greg MacMorran <gmacmorran@gmail.com> 

Friday, August 17, 2012 11:35 AM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Airline Proposal for Rhinelander Airport 

Good Morning Dennis and Brian, 

l "l 3: 0 3 

I want to give you my feedback regarding theairline status for the Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport. First of 

all, I am glad to see the continue need for an airline out of this airport. This is an active airport especially 

during the summer months. We have lots of tourists that come and go throughout the summer from various 

parts of the country. Also, it is active throughout the year with our locals flying out for leisure and business 

trips. I quite frequently use this facility as well. 

I am proposing the request for Sky West Airlines to replace Frontier Airlines. I feel this would be a great 

opportunity for Rhinelander. I am glad to see the opportunity for Delta Connect to come back to Rhinelander. I 

know alot of people will be happy since they can fly into a big hub like Minneapolis. I know in the past when 

Delta was here, this airline was pretty packed with passengers. I know Sky West also runs United 

Express. Maybe in the future, I would look into have United Express come to Rhinelander as well. We have 

alot of people that come up here from Chicago, Illinois. It would be neat to have two airlines again in 

Rhinelander. Also, this would open up the opportunity for those to fly into two major hubs. 

I am a little eerie when it comes to Great Lakes Airlines. I have flown Great Lakes numerous times to 

Milwaukee when they were here before Frontier Airlines. Great Lakes is a great airline. There were numerous 

times, I would be the only passenger or there were no more than 5 passengers on the aircraft. Most of them 

came out of Ironwood, Michigan. I don't think it's the destination of the flight, it's the size of the aircraft that 

scares passengers away. Also, I think it was an inconvenience for passengers that took Great Lakes to connect 

with another airline. I feel passengers would be more comfortable for an airline (like Delta Connect) to connect 

to another flight in the same airline. 

Also, I don't feel comfortable with an airline (Great Lakes Airlines) that agrees to come to a city and then 

decides to pull out for some reason. Now, that same airline wants to re-bid again. To me, they had their chance 

to operate here in Rhinelander. 

As for Sovereign Air I am not too familiar with them. I don't think too many are either. Yes, like I said before, 

I would love to see an airline fly to Chicago. With this airline not certified through FAA, I just feel that would 

be a problem. I be more worried about safety factors. Also, the time that it would take them to get certified, we 

can have an another airline by now. 

Again, I am proposing for Sky West Airlines. 

Thanks again for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Greg MacMorran 

1
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of common rules for certain types of carriage of goods by road (codified version)’

(COM(2004) 47 final – 2004/0017 (COD))

(2004/C 241/05)

On 11 February 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of common rules for certain types of carriage of goods by road (codified version)’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 May 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Simons.

At its 409th plenary session (meeting of 2 June 2004) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 173 votes to one with 16 abstentions:

Brussels, 2 June 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

----

(1)OJ 70 of 6.8.1962, p. 2005. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No. 881/92 (OJ L 95 of 9.4.1992, p. 1) – EESC opinion: OJ C 40 of 17.2.1992, p. 15.

----
Meeting of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson with The Environmental Defense Fund and EJ

Communities to discuss the Ozone Standard

DATE: 6/16/2010

Attendees: Air Alliance Houston Matthew Tejada, Executive Director American Lung Association Janice Nolan, Assistant Vice President, National Policy and Advocacy Appalachian Mountain Club Georgia Murray, Staff Scientist Clean Air Task Force Bruce Hill, Staff Scientist Clean Air Watch Frank O’Donnell, President Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Jus tice Mark Mitchell, President Earthjustice David Baron, Managing Attorney Emily Enderle, Legislative Associate Environment America Nathan Willcox, Energy & Clean Air Advocate Environmental Defense Fund Elena Craft, Health Scientist Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Gina Wood, Director of Policy and Planning Royce Brooks, Policy Analyst National Alliance for Hispanic Health Mr. Adolph P. Falcón, Senior Vice President National Resource Defense Council Jo hn Walke, Clean Air Director Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Elizabeth Kronk, Chief Judge Sierra Club Ed Hopkins, Director, Environmental Quality Program Southern Environmental Law Center Nat Mund, Legislative Director Chandra T. Taylor, Senior Attorney Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS) Ju an Parras, Executive Director
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James A. Wylie, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diomed Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely 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 recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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

Date: May 14, 2007                     /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                       ----------------------------------------
(74 South. 1007)

#### ESHMAN v. STATE.

(6 Div. 166.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1917.)

Appeal from .Criminal Court, J efferson County; William B. Fort, Judge.

John P. Abbott, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of gaming, and appeals, without a bill of exceptions. We find nothing in the record that justifies a reversal of the judgment, or warrants discussion. Affirmed.
§ 458.73 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) Upon his own motion or the motion of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge may direct the parties or their counsel to meet with him for a conference to consider: ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) Necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings for purposes of clarification, simplification, or limitations;
( 3 ) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Limitation of the number of expert witnesses; and
( 5 ) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the disposition of the proceeding.
( b ) The record shall show the matters disposed of by order and by agreement in such prehearing conferences. The subsequent course of the proceeding shall be controlled by such action.
[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31313, Aug. 1, 1985]
#### Barbara Lerner, Individually and as 50% Shareholder Suing Derivatively on Behalf of Resort Properties Ltd. of the Hamptons, Appellant, v Frederick S. Kelling, Jr., et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 527]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated October 15, 1998, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a shareholder of the defendant corporation, established a prima facie case for summary judgment on the first cause of action in the complaint to recover damages for salary allegedly due to her under the parties’ 1988 written agreement. The submissions by the individual defendant in op*435position to the plaintiffs motion were sufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to, *inter alia,*his claim that the plaintiff was not entitled to a distribution of profits as salary because she improperly obtained funds from the corporation’s line of credit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.5


 





Tokyo Teleport Fixed Term Building Lease
Agreement


<Agreement conditions>


	Lender	Tokyo Teleport Center Co., Ltd.	 	 	 
	Borrower	Link Bit Consulting Co.,Ltd.	 	 	 
	Building	Name	New Pier TAKESHIBA South Tower	 	 
	Location	1-16-1 Kaigan Minato-ku Tokyo	 	 
	Structure/ Number of stories	Above-ground part :steel structure, underground part: SRC
	21
    stories above ground, three stories below ground, 1 penthouse floor. 
	Room for rent	21st floor	906.60m2	 
	Purpose of use	Office	 	 	 	 
	Rental period	1 September, 2014 - 31 August, 2015	 	 	 
	Rent fee	Floor	Square measure(m2)	price per square meter	Monthly Fee (Yen)	Consumption Tax/Local Consumption Tax (Yen)	Monthly Fee consumption tax included
	21st Floor	906.60 	4,235	3,839,451	307,156	4,146,607
	Total	                     906,60	***	3,839,451	307,156	4,146,607
	Common Service Fee	Floor	Square measure(m2)	price per square meter	Monthly Fee (Yen)	Consumption Tax/Local Consumption Tax (Yen)	Monthly Fee consumption tax included
	21st Floor	906.60 	1,512	1,370,779	109,662	1,480,441
	Total	906.60 	***	1,370,779	109,662	1,480,441
	Deposit	Floor	Square measure(m2)	price per square meter	Total Amount (Yen)	***
	21st Floor	906.60 	42,350	38,394,510
	Total	906.60 	***	38,394,510
	Remarks	Has Provision of contract.	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	For the room mentioned  above,  the office lease agreement under the provision of Article 38 Act on Land and Building Leases has been made and entered into by and between the lender and theborrower.
	 
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate with their signatures and seals, and each party shall retain one copy. 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	31 August, 2014	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Lender	 	2-5-10 Aomi Koutou-ku Tokyo 	 	 	 
	 	 	Tokyo Teleport Center Co., Ltd.	 	 	 
	 	 	Representative director	Teruo Tazaki	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Borrower	 	1-16-1 Kaigan Minato-ku Tokyo	 	 	 
	 	 	New Pier TAKESHIBA South Tower 21F 	 	 	 
	 	 	Link Bit Consulting Co.,Ltd.	 	 	 
	 	 	Representative director	Takashi Ozawa
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40313

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO LOPEZ-SALAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-821-ALL

--------------------

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Lopez-Salas appeals the 72-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Lopez-Salas argues for the first time on appeal that the

magistrate judge did not have the jurisdiction or authority to

accept his guilty plea because the district court had not
No. 02-40313

-2-

referred the case to the magistrate judge. In United States

v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 256-57 (5th Cir. 2002), this

court concluded that the district court must enter a proper

referral order, but found that a failure to do so causes a

procedural error, which can be waived, rather than a

jurisdictional defect. As in Bolivar-Munoz, Lopez-Salas

consented to proceedings before the magistrate judge and lodged

no objection to the absence of a referral order. Lopez-Salas

waived the procedural error. 

Lopez-Salas contends that his indictment violated the Fifth

and Sixth Amendments because it lacked an allegation that he

acted with general intent. He acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by this court’s precedent in United States v. GuzmanOcampo, 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S.

953 (2001), and United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d 294,

299-300 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001), but

raises it to preserve the issue for review by the Supreme Court. 

Lopez-Salas argues that the felony conviction that resulted

in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an

element of the offense that should have been charged in the

indictment. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did not
No. 02-40313

-3-

overrule Almendarez-Torres. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496;

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 2575.1 In general.

In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 104-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the section 31001(s) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-34, 110 Stat. 1321-373, and section 701 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584, (collectively the Inflation Adjustment Act), the applicable civil monetary penalties of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) and listed in 29 CFR 2575.2 are adjusted as set forth in this subpart, effective as of the relevant dates specified in § 2575.2.

[81 FR 43454, July 1, 2016]
#### SWEENY, Recr v KEYSTONE DRILLER CO

Ohio Supreme Court

*No*21886.

Decided Feb. 19, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.