alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                Exhibit 12
KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<CAPTION>

                                   1996        1995        1994        1993        1992
                                                       (Thousands)
<S>                               <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net income                        $108,171    $122,586    $104,775    $105,772     $86,334

Add:
Taxes on income                     31,753      66,803      66,377      67,953      52,196
Kansas City earnings tax               558         958         524         495         382

 Total taxes on income              32,311      67,761      66,901      68,448      52,578

Interest on value of
 leased property                     8,301       8,269       6,732       7,273       6,366
Interest on long-term debt          53,939      52,184      43,962      50,118      54,266
Interest on short-term debt          1,251       1,189       1,170         750       2,749
Other interest expense
 and amortization                    4,840       3,112       4,128       4,113       2,173

 Total fixed charges                68,331      64,754      55,992      62,254      65,554

Earnings before taxes
 on income and fixed
 charges                          $208,813    $255,101    $227,668    $236,474    $204,466
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                        3.06        3.94        4.07        3.80        3.12



</TABLE>
(V.D. 122)

#### E. Leits, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 771733, etc.

(Decided April 1, 1963)

*Eugene R. PieJcrell*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *E. Leitz, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*40 Cust. Ct. 549, Abstract 61916. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that the protest had been prematurely filed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C.§ 2636(d).)

Stipulated facts, upon which the cases have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the enlargers and accessory lenses, covered by the entries involved herein, is statutory export value, and that such value therefor is as follows:

> *345Entry No. Merchandise United States dollars per each

> 970469 Focomat Ila complete with one 182.88 less 39.24% plus cost of lens packing

> Accessory lens for above_ 26.40 less 39.24% plus cost of packing

> 712956 Focomat Ila complete with one 214.80 less 48% plus cost of packing lens

> Accessory lens for above_ 26.40 less 48% plus cost of packing

> 731661 Focomat Ila complete with one 262.32 less 46% plus cost of packing lens

> Accessory lens for above_ 26.40 less 46% plus cost of packing

> 771733 Focomat Ila complete with one 228.72 less 46% plus cost of packing lens

> Accessory lens for above_ 26.40 less 46% plus cost of packing

> 767728 “ “ “

> 859352 Focomat Ila complete with one 228.48 less 46% plus cost of packing lens

> Accessory lens for above_ 26.40 less 46% plus cost of packing

> 857436 “ “ “ “

> 784941 Focomat Ila complete with one 228.72 less 39.24% plus cost of lens packing

> Accessory lens for above_ 26.40 less 39.24% plus cost of packing

> 788700 “ “ “ “

> 806285 “ “ *“ “*

On the basis of the record before me, I bold that the proper dutiable values of the merchandise in question are as hereinabove itemized, and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
  I, John Barbo, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and principal executive officer of Man Investments (USA) Corp., the general partner of Man-AHL Diversified I L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
  Date: May 16, 2011
/s/ John BarboJohn BarboPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officerof Man Investment (USA) Corp., the General Partner
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Lloyd J. Shulman, certify that:

|  
|--
|1.
|  
|2.
|  
|3.
|  
|4.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)
|   
|(c)
|   
|(d)

|  
|--
|5.

|   
|---
|(a)
|   
|(b)

Date:
    November 17, 2008

|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LLOYDJ. SHULMANLloyd J. ShulmanPresidentChief Executive Officer



---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 41 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9607-9608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3674]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5707]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``Great Britons: Treasures from the National Portrait 
Gallery, London''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875],

[[Page 9608]]

I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Great Britons: Treasures from the National Portrait Gallery, 
London'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 
from on or about April 27, 2007, until on or about September 3, 2007, 
and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to 
be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, 
SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-3674 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4490 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4490

 To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to increase the 
 funds available to Governors for statewide youth workforce investment 
 activities, and statewide adult and dislocated worker employment and 
                          training activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2024

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to increase the 
 funds available to Governors for statewide youth workforce investment 
 activities, and statewide adult and dislocated worker employment and 
                          training activities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Workforce Advancement and Engagement 
Act'' or ``WAE Act''.

SEC. 2. GOVERNOR'S RESERVE FUNDS.

    Section 128(a)(1) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
(29 U.S.C. 3163(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The Governor'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) Governor's reserve funds.--The Governor'';
            (2) by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``25 
        percent''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Portion for employer-based training.--Except 
                as otherwise provided in sections 116(f)(1)(B) and 
                129(a)(4)(A), if a sum reserved under subparagraph (A) 
                from an allotted amount exceeds 15 percent of that 
                allotted amount, the portion that exceeds 15 percent 
                shall be used only for statewide employer-based 
                training activities, notwithstanding sections 
                106(b)(7), 129(b), and 134(a).
                    ``(C) Employer-based training activities.--In this 
                paragraph, the term `employer-based training 
                activities' includes on-the-job training, customized 
                training, or other employer-provided training 
                activities.''.
                                 <all>
```
```
VA Health Care: Tuberculosis Controls Receiving Greater Emphasis at VA
Medical Centers (Chapter Report, 11/09/93, GAO/HRD-94-5).

Lax infection-control practices and inadequate isolation rooms were
behind the tuberculosis outbreak at the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) medical center in East Orange, New Jersey.  Medical center staff
did not consistently use appropriate procedures for isolating suspected
or known tuberculosis patients.  The center lacked a comprehensive
employee-testing program to monitor the staff's exposure to active
tuberculosis.  Isolation rooms did not have proper airflow, and air
exhausted from these rooms may have contaminated other areas in the
medical center.  Since the outbreak, the center has made major
improvements in its infection-control practices, and VA plans to
construct 19 isolation rooms at the center.  VA has also tried to beef
up tuberculosis controls at its other medical centers and is giving
greater scrutiny to centers' tuberculosis-control programs and
practices.  According to a December 1992 VA survey, 10 medical centers
each had more than 20 cases of tuberculosis; six of the 10 also had the
highest numbers of AIDS cases.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-5
     TITLE:  VA Health Care: Tuberculosis Controls Receiving Greater 
             Emphasis at VA Medical Centers
      DATE:  11/09/93
   SUBJECT:  Tuberculosis
             Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
             Veterans hospitals
             Infectious diseases
             Health care services
             Respiratory diseases
             Hospital care services
             Health care facilities
             Internal controls
             Safety standards
IDENTIFIER:  AIDS
             VA Decentralized Hospital Computer Program
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
No. 55907.

protests 127908-K, etc. (Cleveland).

#### Litwin & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisements of the merchandise and the liquidations of the entries were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement and liquidation in *The Gruen Watch Company*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the cited authority *325it was held that legal liquidations should be had which would form the basis for protests in which, should they so desire, the importers may litigate any questions presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James A. Yost, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
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:



| | 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
the Company.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ James A. Yost

James A. Yost
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
October 28, 2003
No. 55935.

protest 156486-K (New York).

#### The Clark Thread Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of textile machinery, finished or unfinished, used exclusively for manufacturing or processing vegetable fibers, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 46120.

#### Protest 5382-K of Rudolph Lesch Fine Arts, Inc. (New York).

Kincheloe, Judge:

Certain merchandise assessed with duty at the rate of 30 cents per pound under the provisions of paragraph 1406, Tariff Act of 1930 as lithographically printed paper articles not exceeding 12/1000 of an inch in thickness, is claimed to be dutiable under the provisions of the same paragraph at 12 cents per pound as lithographically printed articles exceeding 35 square inches cutting size in dimensions.

*230At. the hearing it was stipulated between counsel that the said lithographic prints here in question do not exceed 12/1000 of an inch in thickness, but that they exceed 35 square inches cutting size in dimensions. No other testimony or sample has been introduced in evidence, and the protest has been submitted for decision on said stipulated facts, which presents solely a question of law as to the proper construction of said paragraph 1406, upon which counsel on both sides have filed briefs.

So far as we can see the question presented is a very simple one, and hardly permits of any controversy. The residuary provisions of said paragraph 1406, under which the merchandise was assessed for duty and under -which the plaintiff claims, provide for 3 different classes of lithographic prints, as will be seen by a casual reading thereof, namely:

> 1. All lithographically printed articles other than those otherwise specifically provided for in said paragraph 1406, not exceeding 12/1000 oí one inch in thickness, which are made dutiable at 30 cents per pound, as assessed on the merchandise in question.

> 2. Lithographically printed articles exceeding 12/1000 and not exceeding 20/1000 of one inch in thickness, and less than 35 square inches cutting size in dimensions, dutiable at 15 cents per pound; exceeding 35 square inches cutting size in dimensions, 12 cents per pound. Certain additional duties are also provided on this class of articles of a thickness exceeding 12/1000 and not exceeding 20/1000 of one inch.

> 3. Lithographically printed articles exceeding 20/1000 of one inch in thickness, which are made dutiable at *8%*cents per pound.

It will readily be seen from the foregoing that as the lithographic prints in question are not as thick as 12/1000 of an inch they obviously are excluded from said second class, and fall directly within the first class, as lithographically printed articles not exceeding 12/1000 of 1 inch in thickness, dutiable at 30 cents per pound, as was assessed thereon by the collector.

The claim of the plaintiff is accordingly overruled as being without any merit. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK PAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-1585 MCE KJM P 

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has

not opposed the motion. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty

days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary

judgment or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in

dismissal of this action be pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: July 14, 2010. 

1

payn1585.46

1

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 107 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12
                                  IES UTILITIES INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<CAPTION>

 
                                                   Year Ended December 31,
                                  1992       1993       1994       1995       1996
                              (in thousands, except ratio of earnings to fixed charges)
<S>                         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>

Net income                    $  45,291  $  67,970  $  61,210  $  59,278  $  63,729

Federal and state
   income taxes                  20,723     37,963     37,966     41,095     43,092

      Net income before
         income taxes            66,014    105,933     99,176    100,373    106,821

Interest on long-term debt       35,689     34,926     37,942     36,375     37,048

Other interest                    3,939      5,243      3,630      8,085      6,666

Estimated interest
   component of rents             4,567      3,729      3,970      4,637      4,091

Fixed charges as defined         44,195     43,898     45,542     49,097     47,805

Earnings as defined           $ 110,209  $ 149,831  $ 144,718  $ 149,470  $ 154,626

Ratio of earnings to fixed
   charges (unaudited)             2.49       3.41       3.18       3.04       3.23


For the purposes of computation of these ratios (a) earnings have been
calculated by adding fixed charges and federal and state income taxes
to net income; (b) fixed charges consist of interest (including amortization
of debt expense, premium and discount) on long-term and other debt and the
estimated interest component of rents.
</TABLE>
================================================================================

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 quarterly report of Patient Portal Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas Hagan, Acting Financial 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, to my knowledge, 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 the
Company.

Date: May 15, 2009


                                             /s/ Thomas Hagan
                                             Thomas Hagan
                                             Acting Chief Financial Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 6788.

#### C. HYLAND & CO. vs. MISS ANNIE RICE.

Syllabus.

On Motion To Dismiss.

In fixing the amount of bond for suspensive appeal, interest should be computed to the date of the rendition of the judgment.

*496Opinion and decree, June 16th, 1916.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. 110,432. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

J. J. McLoughlin, for plaintiff and appellee.

F. C. Querens, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHATJX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Suit for $735 was filed on November 24, 1914, but valid service was not secured until December 18th, 1914. By supplemental petition served on February 18th, 1915, the amount claimed was increased to $966.60, for which latter sum, together with legal interest -from judicial demand, judgment was rendered on May 15, 1916. Defendant prosecuted a suspensive appeal and furnished bond for $1,550.00.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the bond does not exceed by one-half the aggregate of the principal and interest of the judgment.

This contention is correct if legal interest on the judgment is to be computed to the date when the bond was furnished, 'but it is not correct if interest is calculated to the date of judgment; and the latter is the proper method to adopt.

Reynolds vs. Egan, 122 La., 47.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.