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

                                                                      Exhibit 12

                           Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp.
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
               -------------------------------------------------
                                (in thousands)
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Fiscal Year Ended
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           December 29,    December 28,     December 27,     December 26,   January 2,
                                               1996            1997             1998             1999          2001
                                           ------------    ------------     ------------      -----------   ----------
<S>                                        <C>             <C>              <C>               <C>           <C>
Earnings (loss) before income taxes......    $ 5,707         $ 3,571         $(203,706)       $(14,277)     $(28,126)
Add:  Total fixed charges deducted
    from earnings (loss).................      7,478           7,403            22,393          22,119        16,710
                                             -------         -------         ---------        --------      --------
Earnings (loss) available for payment
    of fixed charges.....................    $13,185         $10,974         $(181,313)       $  7,842      $(11,416)
                                             =======         =======         =========        ========      ========

Fixed Charges:
    Interest expense.....................    $ 6,950         $ 6,098         $  11,811        $ 11,877      $  7,368
    Portion of operating lease payments
        deemed to be interest............        528           1,305            10,582          10,242         9,342
                                             -------         -------         ---------        --------      --------
Total fixed charges......................    $ 7,478         $ 7,403         $  22,393        $ 22,119      $ 16,710
                                             =======         =======         =========        ========      ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.......       1.76            1.48                 -            0.35             -
                                             =======         =======         =========        ========      ========

Deficiency of earnings available
    to cover fixed charges...............                                    $(203,706)                     $(28,126)
                                                                             =========                      ========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.12


 


WAIVER LETTER


 


JMU Limited


Maples Corporate Services
Limited


P.O. Box 309, Ugland llouse


Grand Cayman, K Y 1-1104


Cayman Islands


 


July 22, 2019


 


Ladies and Gentlemen;


 


 





Reference
is made to that certain Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated as of the date hereof (as further amended, amended and restated,
modified or supplemented from time to time, the “SPA”) by and between
JMU Limited (the “Seller”) and Marvel Billion Development Limited (億迅發展有限公司)
(the “Purchaser”), pursuant to which the Seller will sell to the Purchaser
and the Purchaser will purchase from the Seller all the issued and outstanding shares of New Admiral Limited, an exempted company
with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands that is wholly owned by the Seller (the “Target
Company”). Capitalized terms not defined hereunder shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the SPA.


 







 


In connection
with the transaction contemplated under the SPA, the undersigned, Shanghai Zhongmin Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd. (上海众敏供应链管理有限公司),
a consol idated variable interest entity of the Target Company (“Shanghai Zhongmin”),
hereby irrevocably waives, upon the execution of this Waiver Letter, all the rights, requests, claims and/or allegations that
it may have against the Seller and the Seller's affiliates with respect to all the outstanding liabilities owed by the Seller
to Shanghai Zhongmin. Shanghai Zhongmin acknowledges that this Waiver Letter shall be also binding upon any successor of Shanghai
Zhongmin and Shanghai Zhongmin shall cause any of its successors to comply with this Waiver Letter.


 


[Remainder
of page intentionally left blank]


 






     


     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has executed this Waiver Letter as of the date and year first written above.


 


THE UNDERSIGNED:


 


Shanghai Zhongmin Supply Chain Management
Co., Ltd.


 


	By:

                                                                     
	/s/ QIAN Yong with seal of Shanghai Zhongmin Supply Chain Management
Co., Ltd.
	 






	Name:	 
	Title:	 




 


[Signature Page to the Waiver Letter]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TAMIKA HARTLEY-DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-10093

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

T. BONNEE, and

MILLICENT WARREN,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is a report and recommendation filed on June 30, 2016, by

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. No objections have been filed by the parties. 

Having reviewed the report and recommendation and the entire record;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation is

ADOPTED as the court’s findings and conclusions. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bonnee’s motion to dismiss

(doc. 18) and Defendant Warren’s motion to dismiss (doc. 27) are GRANTED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 25, 2016

5:15-cv-10093-JCO-PTM Doc # 33 Filed 08/25/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 161
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the

parties of record on this date, August 25, 2016, using the ECF system and/or

ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-2-

5:15-cv-10093-JCO-PTM Doc # 33 Filed 08/25/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 162
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.008-4 Test requirements. ( a ) Thermal insulation: The insulation value of the specimens for the full scale test shall be such that the average temperature of thermocouples on the unexposed surface described in § 164.008-3(f)(2) will not rise more than 139 °C. (250 °F.) above the initial temperature, nor will the temperature at any point on the surface, including any joint, rise more than 225 °C. (405 °F.) above the initial temperature at the end of 15 minutes. When failure is due to excessive temperature rise on the joint, consideration will be given to alternate joint construction. The results obtained on the small scale test (2′ × 2′) (60 cm. × 60 cm.) shall be recorded.
( b ) The test shall determine the length of time, up to one hour, that the bulkhead panel, including the joint can withstand the passage of flame. Cracks and openings shall not be such as to lead to flaming of a cotton wool test pad as prescribed in § 164.008-3(e)(3) held facing the aperture at about 25 mm. for a period of 30 seconds. If no flaming occurs, the pad shall be removed and reapplied after a suitable interval.
§ 400.63 Preparation of local resettlement agencies. The State and the national voluntary agencies whose affiliate agencies will be responsible for implementing the public/private RCA program: ( a ) Must determine the training needed to enable local resettlement agencies to achieve a smooth implementation of the RCA program; and
( b ) Must provide the training in a uniform way to ensure that all local resettlement agencies in the State will implement the public/private RCA program in a consistent manner.
Publicly-Administered RCA Programs
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.046-3 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact the Coast Guard at: Commandant (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7509; email: *typeapproval@uscg.mil ;* website: *www.dco.uscg.mil/CG-ENG-4/ .* It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov ;* website: *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .* All approved material is available from the source(s) listed in this section.
( b ) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland; phone: +41 22 749 01 11; email: *central@iso.org ;* web: *www.iso.org .* ( 1 ) ISO 18813:2006(E), Ships and marine technology—Survival equipment for survival craft and rescue boats, First edition, April 1, 2006; IBR approved for §§ 160.046-5; 160.046-7; 160.046-11.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
#### RICHARD W. BUCHHOLTZ ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF VENTNOR ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Argued May 7, 1929

Decided May 21, 1929.

*513Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodiste.

For the prosecutors, *Bourgeois & Coulomb.*

For the defendants, *John 8. Westcott*and *Hiram Steel-man.*

Per Curiam.

The *certiorari*in this case was allowed to review the judgment or order of the board of adjustment of the city of Vent-nor, dated December 24th, 1928, revoking a building permit, dated November 21st, 1928, issued by the inspector of buildings to the prosecutors. The prosecutors file four reasons for setting aside the order or judgment of the board of adjustment. *First.*Because the lands on which the building is being erected are not restricted by the zoning ordinances of Ventnor City and therefore the board was without jurisdiction to act.

*Second and Third.*Because there is no provision in the zoning ordinance which inhibits the erection or use of any building upon said lands.

*Fourth.*Because the board of adjustment was without authority to make the order vacating the building permit issued.

AYe find no legal merit in any of these reasons. They call for no extended discussion.

It may not be amiss, however, to add, the prosecutors urge and rely principally upon the fact that the building zone map of Vennor City provides—first, residence districts; second, apartment districts; third, business districts; on which is marked “Play Grounds,” “City Hall,” “Loop.” The blocks so marked do not come within the designation of any of the restricted districts, as shown upon the map and indicated by the key thereto, therefore, it is argued by the prosecutors that the board had no jurisdiction over the land in question, which is in the plot marked “Loop.” AYe think there is no basis for any such construction to be placed upon the building zone map. The purpose of the zoning map was not only to point out the various classes of zoned districts, but it at*514tempts, also, to *convey some*information concerning locations to the map reader. Its purpose was not to restrict the zoning area by such descriptions. The result we have reached is the order or judgment of the board of adjustment is affirmed and the writ of *certiorari*is- dismissed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARRY LEPOFSKY, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-cv-11772 

 v. DISTRICT JUDGE SEAN F. COX 

 

GARDEN FRESH SALSA, INC., MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [14] 

 For the reasons stated on the record at a hearing held on May 28, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., IT 

IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Barry Lepofsky’s Motion to Compel [14] is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART as follows: 

a. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First 

Request for Production (RFP) nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 is GRANTED to the extent that 

Defendant has not yet produced all responsive documents within its custody, possession, 

or control. If Defendant has withheld documents on the basis of the attorney-client 

privilege or under the work product doctrine, Defendant will provide a privilege log to 

Plaintiff if it has not already done so. Defendant will produce said documents and/or a 

privilege log within thirty (30) days of this Order. 

b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First 

RFP nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, and 38 is DENIED; 

2:14-cv-11772-SFC-MKM Doc # 32 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 611
2 

c. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s 

Second RFP nos. 1 and 4 is GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days of this Order, the parties 

will draft, stipulate to, and submit a Joint Protective Order to the Court for signature to 

protect the confidentiality of these documents. Defendant will produce documents 

responsive to the aforementioned RFPs within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the 

protective order. At Defendant’s discretion, a privilege log may be produced and 

entered; 

d. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of documents requested in Plaintiff’s 

December 30, 2014 subpoena duces tecum is DENIED as moot; 

e. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of documents listed on Defendant’s January 

23, 2015 privilege log is DENIED; 

f. Plaintiff’s Motion for an order that a forensic examination of Defendant’s computer and 

email system be conducted was withdrawn by Plaintiff at the hearing; and 

g. Plaintiff’s Motion for its expenses incurred in bringing this Motion is DENIED. 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen 

days from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as 

may be permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Dated: May 28, 2015 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2:14-cv-11772-SFC-MKM Doc # 32 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 612
3 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Counsel of Record on this date. 

Dated: May 28, 2015 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-11772-SFC-MKM Doc # 32 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 613
No. 6179.

#### William Shelton *v.*The State.

1. Complaint—Information—Variance.—The complaint alleges that the offense was committed on the sixteenth day of January, 1888; the information that it was committed on the eleventh day of January, 1888. *Held,*that the variance is immaterial.

2. Same,—Verdict reads: “ We, the josurys, find the defendant gilty,” etc. *Held,*that the words incorrectly spelled constitute no material defect.

3. Carrying a Pistol — Exemption as “A Person Traveling”— Practice.—Whether the accused was “ a person traveling” and therefore exempt from the operation of the statute denouncing the offense of carrying a pistol, is a question of fact for the determination of the jury.

4. Same.—A Fugitive from Justice, while fleeing the country, is not “ a person traveling,” within the exception of the statute forbidding the carrying of a pistol.

6. Same—Venue.—Proof of the venue as alleged is essential to a legal conviction for crime.

*444Opinion delivered April 10, 1889.

Appeal from the County Court of Montague. Tried below before the Hon. Griffin Ford, County Judge.

The appellant was convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol on his person, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of twenty-five dollars and confinement in the county jail for twenty days.

The proof shows that while in attendance upon a dance at a place known as Eagle Point, the defendant was informed that an officer was en route to said dance to arrest him. He and another person thereupon mounted a horse and went to Nocona, where defendant boarded a train and went to Childress county. Between Eagle Point and Hocona he drew and discharged a pistol.

*Stephens & Herbert,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

It was not error to overrule the motion in arrest of judgment. There is no material variance between the complaint and the information, and there is no material defect in the verdict.

Whether or not the defendant, at the time he carried the pistol, was “a person traveling” was a question of fact for the determination of the jury, and this issue was fully and fairly submitted to the. jury by the charge of the court. We are of the opinion that the evidence warranted the jury in finding against the defendant upon said issue. It was shown that at the time defendant carried the pistol he was fleeing from the officers of the law to evade arrest. It is not the intention of the law to license fugitives from justice to carry arms. They are not “persons traveling,” within the meaning of the exception in the statute.

There is no proof in the record of the venue of the offense, and, therefore, the conviction must be set aside. This error is confessed by the Assistant Attorney General. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### § 176.930 Equivalents.

As outlined in Chapter I (General Provisions) Regulation 5, of SOLAS, the Commandant may accept an equivalent to a particular fitting, material, apparatus, or any particular provision required by SOLAS regulations if satisfied that such equivalent is at least as effective as that required by the regulations. An owner or managing operator of a vessel may submit a request for the acceptance of an equivalent following the procedures in § 175.540 of this chapter. The acceptance of an equivalent must be indicated on the vessel's SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate or Safety Management Certificate, as appropriate.

[CGD 95-073, 62 FR 67515, Dec. 24, 1997, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.023-3 Specifications and standards incorporated by reference. ( a ) Certain materials are incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than the one listed in paragraph (b) of this section, notice of change must be published in the Federal Register and the material made available to the public. All approved material may be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and at Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also available from the sources indicated in paragraph (c) of this section. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) The materials approved for incorporation by reference in this subpart, and the sections affected are: Federal Standards and Test Method Standards The following test methods in Federal Test Method Standard No. 191A, Textile Test Methods, July 20, 1978: (1) Method 4010, Length-Weight Relation; Thread; Yards Per Pound (m/kg)—164.023-11. (2) Method 4100, Strength and Elongation, Breaking; and Tenacity; of Thread and Yarn; Single Strand—164.023-7. (3) Method 5804, Weathering Resistance of Cloth; Accelerated Weathering Method—164.023-7. Federal Specifications (4) V-T-285E—Thread, Polyester, August 21, 1986—164.023-5. (5) V-T-295E—Thread, Nylon, August 1, 1985—164.023-5. Military Specifications (6) MIL-T-43548C—Thread, Polyester Core: Cotton-, Rayon-, or Polyester-Covered, September 30, 1986—164.023-5. (7) MIL-T-43624A—Thread, Polyester, Spun, January 22, 1982—164.023-5.
( c ) The Federal standards may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service, Office of the FAS Commissioner, 2200 Crystal Drive, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22202; 703-605-5400. Military Specifications and Standards, Standardization Documents Order Desk, Building 4D, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, *https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ .*
[CGD 84-068, 58 FR 29497, May 20, 1993, as amended by CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50467, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996; 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60162, Sept. 30, 2013]
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Daniel Mckinney, the Chief Executive Officer of Asia Properties, Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the report on Form 10-Q of Asia Properties, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Asia Properties, Inc..

Date:   November 2010.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Mckinney

_______________________________

Daniel MckinneyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)

 

 

 

----
NUMBER 13-11-00517-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOSH EUGENE COMSTOCK, Appellant,

v.

REBECCA ANNE COMSTOCK, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 94th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Josh Eugene Comstock, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 10-0889-C. Appellant 

has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have 

reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests

that this Court dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

hereby DISMISSED. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent 

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant=s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 

and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

20th day of October, 2011.