alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.1****COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                           **Nine Months Ended**  **Year Ended December 31,**   **September 30, 2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003**  **2002**  **2001** Fixed charges:                        Interest expense $421,818  $185,935  $79,053  $39,956  $13,974  $4,286 Interest capitalized  339   932   —   —   —   — Interest portion of rental expense  952   1,244   1,494   843   429   223                    Total fixed charges $423,109  $188,111  $80,547  $40,799  $14,403  $4,509                                             Earnings:                        Net income before noncontrolling interest expensesand income taxes $274,861  $269,072  $205,421  $132,480  $41,582  $6,792 Fixed charges  423,109   188,111   80,547   40,799   14,403   4,509 Less: Interest capitalized  (339)  (932)  —   —   —   —                    Total earnings $697,631  $456,251  $285,968  $173,279  $55,985  $11,301                                             Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  **1.6x**** **  **2.4x**** **  **3.6x**** **  **4.2x**** **  **3.9x**** **  **2.5x**** **
No. 51409.

#### Protests 570376-G, etc., of Husney & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.17



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
AMGEN NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, 2013


The Amgen Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective October 16, 2013 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended, effective October 14, 2016, as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 6.2 is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and replacing it with the following:




Any lump-sum payment made pursuant to this Section 6.2 or Section 6.4 shall be made, or installment payments shall commence, no later than December 31 of the year immediately following the year in which the Participant dies.


		
	2.
	Section 8.3 is amended by adding the following new subsection (d) to read as follows:




		
	(d)
	If there is an inclusion in income under Code Section 457A with respect to any portion of a Participant’s Account Balance, such inclusion is treated as a payment for purposes of the short-term deferral rule under §1.409A-1(b)(4).  If the short-term deferral rule under §1.409A-1(b)(4) is satisfied, the amount included in income will be distributed to the Participant during the taxable year in which such income inclusion occurs.  If the short-term deferral rule under §1.409A-1(b)(4) is not satisfied, the amount included in income will be accelerated to the extent permitted under applicable IRS guidance.




To record this First Amendment to the Plan as set forth herein, the Company has caused its authorized officer to execute this document this 14th day of October 2016.




AMGEN INC.




By:    /s/ Brian McNamee___________
Brian McNamee
Executive Vice President


1
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Unlock a User Profile

To unlock a user profile, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select User Administration>Manage Users. The Step 1 of 2 

Select a User page appears.

2. Select the user profile radio button that you want to unlock. 

3. Select Unlock Account as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Step 1 of 2: Select a User (Unlock User Account)

• You can only unlock one user profile at a time.

• Unlocking a user profile allows the user to log in to OTCnet Offline using his/her 

original password.

4. The Step 2 of 2: Review User Profile To Be Unlocked page appears. 

5. Verify the following user profile should be unlocked and select Submit. A Confirmation page 

appears verifying the user profile is unlocked.

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• Select Return to View User Profile List to return to the View User Profile List for 

that terminal.

• Select Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Additional Buttons
EXHIBIT 99

                                                                   April 1, 2002

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, DC  20549

         Re: Confirmation of Arthur Andersen LLP Representations

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      This letter confirms that Katy Industries, Inc. has received from Arthur
Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), the independent public accountant engaged by the
company to audit the company's financial statements that are included in the
Form 10-K to which this letter is filed as an exhibit, a representation letter
addressed to the company and stating that:

      o     the audit conducted by Andersen was subject to Andersen's quality
            control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to
            provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
            compliance with professional standards; and

      o     there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel
            working on the audit and availability of national office
            consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
            Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     Katy Industries, Inc.

                                                     Amir Rosenthal
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRONCHE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1783 FCD KJM P

vs.

THE CDC, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By previous order, plaintiff's original complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. On May 3, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint.

The amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven,

plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Hall, Jenkins, McCracken,

Mendoza, Ruiz, Roszko, Schwartz, Thumser and Veal. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff nine USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed May 3, 2005.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Ten copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed May 3, 2005. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: January 13, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

john1783.1(5.03.05)

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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

BRONCHE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-1783 FCD KJM P 

vs.

THE CDC, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 9 completed USM-285 forms

 10 copies of the 5/3/05 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM Document 9 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 3
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sources of free or low-costfood and nutrition materials**
 
1990 | 1991 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
2001 | 2002(html at webharvest.gov)
 
SuDoc Number:A 17.33:
Item Number:0095-A-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000560328
 
December 9, 2019
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

 On November 24, 2004, plaintiff paid the $150.00 filing fee. However, on August 24, 1

2006, $350.00 was submitted to the court as an additional filing fee. Plaintiff is advised that the

filing fee for this case is $150.00 and he may request a refund from the Financial Office of this

court. Plaintiff should provide the case file number, the name of the person who should receive

the refund and the mailing address.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY A. PATE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1201 FCD DAD P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFFS DEPUTIES,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. 

1

On November 15, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to file his proof of service

reflecting that service had been completed on defendant Garcia, the sole defendant in this action,

or to show cause why service has not been completed. On January 5, 2006, the court provided

plaintiff with an additional fifteen days to file his proof of service. Alternatively, the court

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 31 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 On July 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a letter to the court indicating that his mother would be 2

submitted the $350.00 filing fee. Attached to the letter was a trust account statement and the

second page of the in forma pauperis application.

2

informed plaintiff that if he submitted an application requesting leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and the application was granted, the court would order the U.S. Marshal to serve

process on defendant Garcia. Plaintiff has submitted neither the proof of service not a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, the court will again order plaintiff to file 2

his proof of service reflecting that service on defendant Garcia has been completed. If service

has not been completed, this action will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days from the service

of this order, plaintiff shall file his proof of service reflecting that defendant Garcia has been

served with the summons and second amended complaint. Failure to comply with this order will

result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DATED: September 8, 2006.

DAD:4

pate1201.pos2

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 31 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALBONICO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

(Doc. 50) to respond to defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment (Docs. 45 &

46). Good cause appearing therefor, the request will be granted.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff may file responses to defendants’ motions to dismiss and for

summary judgment within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

DATED: August 1, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 51 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3999 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
AMENDMENTNO. 1

TO

EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT

OF

JOSEPH F.OLIVERI

        AMENDMENTNO. 1, effective as of July 1, 2001 (“Amendment”), to that certainEmployment Agreement, dated as of June 6, 2000 (the “EmploymentAgreement”), between Interface Electronics Corp. a Massachusettscorporation (“Interface”), and Joseph F. Oliveri (hereinafter referredto as “Executive”), pursuant to which Executive has been employed asPresident of Interface. Terms not defined in this Amendment shall have suchmeanings otherwise ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. 

        WHEREBY,Interface and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to properlyreflect the intention of the parties. 

        NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises hereinafter set forth, the parties,intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 

        2.Notwithstanding the foregoing restatement of Section 3.5.1 of the EmploymentAgreement, all other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue infull force and effect.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

JOHN C. ROBINSON, NO. CIV. S-04-1684 DFL KJM

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE DISPOSITION AFTER

 NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants. 

 /

The court has been advised by plaintiff's counsel, John M.

Riestenberg, Esq. that this action has been settled. 

Therefore, it is not necessary that the action remain upon the

court's active calendar. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That counsel file settlement/dismissal documents, in

accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, no later

Case 2:04-cv-01684-DFL -KJM Document 40 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

than November 21, 2005, and,

2. That all hearing dates previously set in this matter

are vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 9/21/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01684-DFL -KJM Document 40 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10734)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1128-H, etc.

(Decided April 28, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by counsel for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning January 17, 1960 and ending September 30, 1960; that wire strand is not identified in the Einal List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by each of the appeals to reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered *535by tbe instant appeals to reappraisement were freely sold, or in tbe absence of sales, offered for sale in tbe principal market of Japan in tbe usual wholesale quantity and in tbe ordinary course of trade, for exportation to tbe United States, including tbe cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing tbe merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to tbe United States, was $254 per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter and $252. per metric ton for wire strand of *7/m*inch diameter (United States funds).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals to reap-praisement set forth in Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and tbe entry file covered by each appeal.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is $254 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter and $252 per metric ton for wire strand of %6-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 52293.

protests 981852-G, etc. (Boston, etc.).

#### McLaughlin & Freeman et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
September 14, 1950

No. 54662.

Suit 4631.

#### H. H. MacDonaugh & Co. (The Mutual Supply Co.) *v.*United States.

Reap. Dee. 7701 affirmed June 30, 1950. C. A. D. 436.
EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief Executive
Officer, President, Principal Accounting Officer 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:

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


August 11, 2010



By   /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President,  Chief  Executive  Officer,
     Chief  Financial  Officer,  and
     Principal Accounting Officer
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

RICHARD DENNIS GAMACHE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0859 RRB PAN P

vs.

BRETT WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a third amended

complaint pursuant to the court's order of March 27, 2006. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's April 24, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a third amended complaint. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: May 2, 2006.

/mp:001

gama0859.36

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN Document 57 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 47369.

#### Protests 14147-K, etc., of Union Brokerage Co. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
Before the First Division,

December 2, 1954

No. 58539.

protests 184041-K, etc. (Boston).

#### French Worsted Company et al. *v.*United States,

*443Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b)j was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.