alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12
                CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION
                                     
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF  PROFIT TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (Unaudited)
                            (Millions of Dollars)
                                       Three Months Ended
                                       March 31,      March 31,
                                         1999           1998
                                      
  Profit                                 $  35         $  24
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes              20            13

  Deduct:
    Equity in profit of                      -            (1)
  partnerships

  Profit before taxes                    $  55         $  36

  Fixed charges:
    Interest on borrowed funds            $132          $106
    Rentals at computed interest*            1             1

  Total fixed charges                     $133          $107

  Profit before taxes plus fixed
   Charges                                $188          $143

  Ratio of profit before taxes
  plus  fixed charges to fixed            1.41          1.34
  charges

*Those portions of rent expense that are representative of interest cost.
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

U.S. BANK, N.A., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ENTERTAINER, Official No. 627953, their 

Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, etc., 

In Rem; 

and 

FIRST CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., and 

S. HILTON SMITH, 

In Personam, 

 Defendants. 

 IN ADMIRALTY 

Case No. CV05-1534C 

ORDER TO DISMISS 

DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ 

Counter-Claim (Dkt. No. 44). 

The Court notes that this motion appears to be moot (see Order (Dkt. No. 35)) 

because the relief sought has already been agreed to by Defendants. Moreover, the instant 

motion was filed well past the dispositive motions deadline in this case, and is therefore 

untimely. Yet, no opposition has been filed by Defendants. 

Case 2:05-cv-01534-JCC Document 46 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2
Accordingly, Defendants’ First Capital Partners, Ltd. and S. Hilton Smith’s 

counter-claim for the return of personal property or judgment against the plaintiff U.S. 

Bank, N.A. for the value of such property is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DATED this 7th day of November, 2006. 

AJOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01534-JCC Document 46 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 263

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 15, 2007.

Whereas National Foster Care Month provides an opportunity to recognize the important role that the foster care 

system plays in the lives of the more than 500,000 children currently in foster care programs throughout the 

United States; 

Whereas National Foster Care Month also provides an opportunity to explore the difficulties faced by children in the 

foster care system and to reaffirm the Nation’s commitment to improving the lives of these children by improving foster care programs; 

Whereas many children in the foster care system have spent 

multiple years in foster care programs and have experienced an unstable home life due to frequent moves from 

one foster home to another; 

Whereas approximately 50 percent of foster care children 

have been placed in foster care programs for longer than 

1 year; 

Whereas 25 percent of foster care children have been placed 

in foster care programs for at least 3 years; 

Whereas children in foster care programs for longer periods 

of time often experience worse outcomes than children in 

foster care programs for shorter periods of time; 
2

•HRES 263 EH 

Whereas children in foster care programs are more likely 

than the general population to become teen parents, to 

rely on public assistance as adults, to become homeless, 

and to experience mental health disorders at a higher 

rate; 

Whereas repeated studies have shown that a child’s very early 

years are critical for brain development, meaning that it 

is extremely important to find suitable permanent homes 

for children during this critical period; 

Whereas there are 119,000 children eligible for adoption 

every year and less than half of the children in foster 

care programs actually get adopted; 

Whereas a stable home is critical to a child’s development; 

and 

Whereas every child deserves to be raised by a loving family: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That in recognition of National Foster Care 

Month and in order to improve the foster care system 

throughout the United States, it is the sense of the House 

of Representatives that Congress should ensure that improving the foster care system remains a top priority for both 

Congress and the Nation. 

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 61460.

#### Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 989490-G (New York).

' Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
From: gracejim2@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

James Smyth

Carlisle, PA 17013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0001037417
<NAME>                         SYSCOMM INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                2,630,000
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         7,494,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           (147,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                             339,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     10,981,000
<PP&E>                                                                4,631,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        1,241,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       14,929,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 2,414,000
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                 55,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                            9,755,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         14,929,000
<SALES>                                                              21,063,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     21,063,000
<CGS>                                                                18,468,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        18,468,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      4,082,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       80,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (1,494,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           (276,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  (1,218,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (1,218,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                              (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              (.26)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of M.A.J. Jr., H.A.J., and B.D.J., Children

Appellate case number: 01-19-00685-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-04197J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: July 10, 2020

Party filing motion: Appellee

A majority of the en banc court has voted to deny appellee’s motion for en banc 

reconsideration. It is ordered that the motion is denied.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Julie Countiss_________

Acting for the En Banc Court*

Date: ___December 10, 2020___________________

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman, 

Landau, Hightower, Countiss, and Adams.

Keyes, J., dissenting from the denial of en banc reconsideration for reasons stated in her dissenting 

opinion on rehearing.
From: ochoana66@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:45:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Hugo Ochoa

Chino, CA 91710
From: nplatta@pcec.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:19:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nick Platta

Crystal Lake, IL 60014
** **

**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the report of CommScope, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| By:    | /s/ FRANK M. DRENDEL                                 |   |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   | Frank M. Drendel                                     |   |   |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |   |
|   |                                                 |   |   |
| Date:  | August 2,  2006                                      |   |   |
|   |                                                 |   |   |
|   |                                                 |   |   |
| By:    | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDT                              |   |   |   |
|   | Jearld L. Leonhardt                                  |   |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|   |                                                 |   |   |
| Date:  | August 2, 2006                                       |   |   |

 

 

----
No. 60495.

#### Ch. Chraime et al. *v.*United States,

protests 301897-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 01-2098 JAMES MARCELLO; OLIVIA MARCELLO, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge ]

Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge , and Lipez, Circuit Judge .

James C. Marcello and Olivia A. Marcello on brief pro se. G. Steven Rowe , Attorney Genera l, a nd Andrew S. Hagler , Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
November 19, 2001-2- PerCuriam . We have reviewed the parties' brief s and the record on appeal. We affirm essentially for the reasons statedin the magistrate judge's r ecommended decision, dated June 26, 2001, and affirmed by the district court on J uly 6 , 2001. Affirmed .
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 453 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 6, 2007.
    Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2446) to reauthorize the Afghanistan Freedom 
Support Act of 2002, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. 
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in 
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2446 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 

THIRD ADDENDUM 
 TO THE
RESEARCH AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This Third Addendum to Research and License Agreement (the “Third Addendum”) is made by and
between The Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd. (“TRDF”) and Eloxx Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“Licensee” or “Eloxx”). 

WHEREAS, TRDF and Eloxx are parties to Research and License Agreement with an effective date of August 29, 2013, as
amended on November 26, 2013, January 14, 2014, June 9, 2014, August 3, 2014 and January 21, 2015 (collectively, the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to continue the relationship contemplated by the Agreement and therefore to further amend the
Agreement as set forth herein: 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

 

	1.	Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Third Addendum shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement. 


 

	2.	Licensee wishes to receive materials from the Principal Investigator under this Third Addendum, all as described in Exhibit A attached hereto which shall be added to the Agreement (the
“Materials”). 

  

	3.	TRDF has already provided Licensee the Materials, on December 2014. 

  

	4.	In consideration of the Materials provision, TRDF is entitled to a total amount of ten thousand US dollars ($10,000) (the “Payment”), VAT, as applicable on time of payment, shall be added to the
Payment. 

  

	5.	Licensee shall pay TRDF the Payment, immediately upon signing this Third Addendum and receipt of proper invoice from TRDF. 

  

	6.	Except as added herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, as relevant to the Third Addendum. 


 

	7.	This Third Addendum may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any signature page delivered by facsimile or
electronic image transmission shall be binding to the same extent as an original signature page. 

 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereby accept and agree to the terms and conditions of this Third Addendum. 
  

					
	ELOXX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.	 	 THE TECHNION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
LTD.



											
						
	By:	 	 /s/ Silvia Norman
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Rita Bruckstein
	 	
	Name: Silvia Norman	 		 	Name: Rita Bruckstein	 	
	Title: CEO	 		 	Name: Research Authority	 	
	Date: 27/01/15	 		 	Date: 9/2/2015	 	








 Exhibit A 

Supply of the compounds: NB84, NB122, NB124 and NB127, each in the amount of 100 mg 

  
 2
From: gasmith@linkport.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:34:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients.

I urge you in the strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations

from the list of mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

greg Smith

Gresham, OR 97030