alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1
 ADC Telecommunications
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Instructions to Paragraph 503(d)  SEC Handbook
(in millions)
 Fiscal Year2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005EarningsIncome (loss) before income taxes
    
    $
    (468.8
    )
    
    $
    (38.2
    )
    
    $
    126.8
    
    
    $
    55.6
    
    
    $
    103.2ADD+ Adjustment for minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries
    
    $
    (1.3
    )
    
    
    (0.7
    )
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    0.9+ Income or loss from equity investees
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (0.1
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    + Fixed Charges
    
    $
    28.0
    
    
    
    31.3
    
    
    
    19.8
    
    
    
    18.6
    
    
    
    13.5+ Distributed income of equity investees
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    + ADCs share of pre-tax losses of equity investees for which charges arising from
guarantees are included in fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Sub-total
    
    
    (442.1
    )
    
    
    (7.6
    )
    
    
    148.0
    
    
    
    74.8
    
    
    
    117.6SUBTRACT- Interest Capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    - Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    - Minority interest in pre-tax income of subsidiaries that have not incurred fixed charges
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    (1.5
    )
    
    
    (1.1
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )Sub-total
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    (1.5
    )
    
    
    (1.1
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )Total Earnings
    
    $
    (440.8
    )
    
    $
    (6.9
    )
    
    $
    146.5
    
    
    $
    73.7
    
    
    $
    116.7Fixed ChargesInterest Expensed
    
    $
    24.1
    
    
    $
    26.0
    
    
    $
    14.8
    
    
    $
    14.3
    
    
    $
    9.7Interest Capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Amortized premiums, discounts & capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    2.2
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.5Interest Within Rental Expense
    
    
    2.2
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    3.5
    
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    2.3Preference Security Dividend Requirements
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    28.0
    
    
    $
    31.3
    
    
    $
    19.8
    
    
    $
    18.6
    
    
    $
    13.5Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (15.7
    )
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    7.4
    
    
    
    4.0
    
    
    
    8.6Deficiency of Earnings to Fixed Charges
****Exhibit 31.2****

****Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  I, Terry A. Hanson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MGE Energy,  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; and

 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 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 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 control over financial reporting which are  reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,  summarize and report financial; 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.

/s/ Terry A. Hanson   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary  Date: March 15, 2004****
Exhibit 99.2


                         Section 906 Certification
                         -------------------------

        The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Form 10-Q of the MLM Index Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).

        The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the MLM Index Fund.


May 15, 2003


/s/ James A. Mehling
-------------------------------------------
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Mount Lucas Management Corporation,
the manager of the MLM Index Fund
#### § 784.103 Adoption of the exemption in the original 1938 Act.

Although in the course of consideration of the legislation in Congress before passage in 1938, provisions to exempt employment in fisheries and aquatic products activities took various forms, section 13(a)(5), as drafted by the conference committee and finally approved, followed the language of an amendment adopted during consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives on May 24, 1938, which was proposed by Congressman Bland of Virginia. He had earlier on the same day, offered an amendment which had as its objective the exemption of the “fishery industry,” broadly defined. The amendment had been defeated (83 Cong. Rec. 7408), as had an amendment subsequently offered by Congressman Mott of Oregon (to a pending amendment proposed by Congressman Coffee of Nebraska) which would have provided an exemption for “industries engaged in producing, processing, distributing, or handling * * * fishery or seafood products which are seasonal or perishable” (83 Cong. Rec. 7421-7423). Against this background, when Congressman Bland offered his amendment which ultimately became section 13(a)(5) of the Act he took pains to explain: “This amendment is not the same. In the last amendment I was trying to define the fishery industry. I am now dealing with those persons who are exempt, and I call the attention of the Committee to the language with respect to the employment of persons in agriculture * * * I am only asking for the seafood and fishery industry that which has been done for agriculture.” It was after this explanation that the amendment was adopted (83 Cong. Rec. 7443). When the conference committee included in the final legislation this provision from the House bill, it omitted from the bill another House provision granting an hours exemption for employees “in any place of employment” where the employer was “engaged in the processing of or in canning fresh fish or fresh seafood” and the provision of the Senate bill providing an hours exemption for employees “employed in connection with” the canning or other packing of fish, etc. (see *Mitchell* v. *Stinson,* 217 F. 2d 210; *McComb* v. *Consolidated Fisheries,* 75 F. Supp. 798). The indication in this legislative history that the exemption in its final form was intended to depend upon the employment of the particular employee in the specified activities is in accord with the position of the Department of Labor and the weight of judicial authority.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESAU ROGERS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

S. RIVAS, Correctional Officer,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-55439

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Esau Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Rivas searched his

cell in retaliation for an administrative grievance that Rogers had filed against

FILED

OCT 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-55439

Rivas over a year earlier. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rogers failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his protected conduct

motivated the search of his cell and whether the search reasonably advanced a

legitimate penological goal. See id. at 1270 (explaining elements of a retaliation

claim); see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A summary

judgment motion cannot be defeated relying solely on conclusory allegations

unsupported by factual data.”). 

We decline to consider those documents submitted by Rogers that were not

presented to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); United States v. SanchezLopez, 879 F.2d 541, 548 (9th Cir. 1989). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mercury General Corporation
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                         |  |                      |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 24, 2004 |  | /s/    GEORGE
JOSEPH
|                         |  |                      |  | George Joseph          
|                         |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mercury General Corporation
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                         |  |                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 24, 2004 |  | /s/    THEODORE
STALICK
|                         |  |                         |  | Theodore Stalick       
|                         |  |                         |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Morton Industrial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William D. Morton, Chairman and Chief Executive 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, that to the best of my knowledge:

/
s / William D. Morton

William
D. Morton
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
November 4, 2002

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
Has your boat or ship been to a port outside of the continental United States or Canada within the last 2 years? Has it 

been to a port in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands in the last year? 

If you answered yes to either of these questions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) would like you to know that the garbage from your boat or ship is regulated and must be 

disposed of per APHIS regulations, regardless of where your stores were purchased. 

What Does This Mean?

If you answered yes to either of these questions, please ensure that all garbage is placed in covered, leak-proof containers 

within the vessel railings while in U.S. waters. If you plan to off-load your garbage, please contact the APHIS office 

nearest you to notify us of your intention to off-load garbage.

Regulated garbage cannot be thrown into domestic garbage containers or be taken to the local landfill. 

All regulated garbage off-loaded from a vessel in the United States must be placed in a container labeled as “Foreign 

Garbage,” “Regulated Garbage,” or “International Garbage.” 

In order to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests and animal diseases into the United States, APHIS 

regulates any garbage that is of plant or animal origin, including food scraps, packaging materials, and any items 

that have come in contact with these materials. It must be handled by an APHIS-approved facility that is capable of 

incinerating or sterilizing the garbage. Dumping of regulated garbage into U.S. territorial waters or non-designated 

garbage receptacles is illegal, and under Federal law, you can be fined or criminally prosecuted for such actions. More 

information is available on the USDA APHIS Web site at www.aphis.usda.gov. Click on “Plant Health,” then “Import 

into the U.S.,” and then “Regulated Garbage.” 

For More Information

If you have questions about where to dispose of regulated garbage properly or what constitutes regulated garbage, 

please contact the APHIS office nearest you (www.aphis.usda.gov/planthealth/sphd), or call the number listed below. 

ATTENTION SHIPOWNERS: 

Where’s Your Garbage Going?

Help protect American agriculture—

dispose of your ship’s garbage properly!

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Program Aid No. 2023B 

Issued October 2014 USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1157

_____________________________

MICHAEL ALEXANDER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

William L. Gary, Judge.

September 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 274 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 274

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
                             Lewis v. Bayh.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 18 (legislative day, July 17), 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
                             Lewis v. Bayh.

Whereas, in the case of Lewis v. Bayh, Case No. 07-CV-0939 (D.D.C.), pending in 
        the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        plaintiff has named as defendant Senator Evan Bayh;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its 
        counsel to defend the Senate and Members, officers, and employees of the 
        Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senator Evan Bayh in the case of Lewis v. Bayh.
                                 <all>
```
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 398 

Honoring the life and recognizing the accomplishments of Joe Nuxhall, 

broadcaster for the Cincinnati Reds. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2007 

Mr. BROWN submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and recognizing the accomplishments of 

Joe Nuxhall, broadcaster for the Cincinnati Reds. 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall was born on July 30, 1928, in Hamilton, Ohio; 

Whereas on June 10, 1944, at the age of 15 years, 10 

months, and 11 days Joe Nuxhall became the youngest 

player in the modern era to appear in a major league 

baseball game; 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall earned over 100 victories in his sixteen 

year major league career and was elected into the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame; 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall began a radio broadcasting career in 

1967 and went on to call over 6,000 games for the Cincinnati Reds; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

SRES 398 ATS 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall had a career spanning over sixty years 

with the Cincinnati Reds; 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall will be remembered for his signature 

sign off, ‘‘This is the Ol’ Lefthander rounding third and 

heading for home.’’; 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall whose voice was synonymous with baseball and the summer for generations of fans across the 

country; 

Whereas Joe Nuxhall was a beloved community leader, philanthropist, husband, father, and advocate for children, 

public schools, and the elderly; and 

Whereas Ohio has lost a beloved son and baseball one of its 

most distinctive voices with the passing of Joe Nuxhall 

on November 15, 2007: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors the life of Joe 

2 Nuxhall, baseball legend, dedicated family man, and civic3 minded leader. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
APPENDIX 9E 2009 INPUT FILE

* New IM Program - Annual OBD only

> 15 Year Exemption Age

*

> New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 

vehicles <=8,500 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 1 2009 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M

I/M MODEL YEARS : 1 1996 2007

I/M VEHICLES : 1 22222 11111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 1 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 1 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 1 0.0 1.0

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 1 15

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 1 1

> New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and 

later <=14,000 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 2 2009 2050 1 TRC OBD I/M

I/M MODEL YEARS : 2 2008 2050

I/M VEHICLES : 2 22222 22111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 2 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 2 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 2 0.0 1.0

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 2 15

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 2 1

> New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles 

<=8,500 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 3 2009 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 3 1996 2007

I/M VEHICLES : 3 22222 11111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 3 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 3 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 3 0.0 1.0

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 3 15

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 3 1

> New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and 

later <=14,000 lb GVWR

I/M PROGRAM : 4 2009 2050 1 TRC EVAP OBD 

I/M MODEL YEARS : 4 2008 2050

I/M VEHICLES : 4 22222 22111111 1

I/M STRINGENCY : 4 20.0

I/M COMPLIANCE : 4 96.0

I/M WAIVER RATES : 4 0.0 1.0

I/M EXEMPTION AGE : 4 15

I/M GRACE PERIOD : 4 1