alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.1****Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges**                           **Six Months**      **Ended**  **Year Ended December 31,**   **June 30, 2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003**  **2002**  **2001**   **($ in thousands)** Fixed charges:                        Interest expense $251,700  $185,935  $79,053  $39,956  $13,974  $4,286 Interest capitalized  234   932   —   —   —   — Interest portionof rental expense  641   1,244   1.494   843   429.   223                    Total fixed charges $252,575  $188.111  $80.547  $40.799  $14.403  $4.509                                             Earnings:                        Net income beforeincome taxes andcumulative effectof accountingchange $168,354  $269,072  $205,421  $132,480  $41,582  $6,792 Fixed charges  252,575   188,111   80,547   40,799   14,403   4,509 Less: Interestcapitalized  (234)  (932)  —   —   —   —                    Total earnings $420,695  $456,251  $285,968  $173,279  $55.985  $11,301                                             Ratio of earnings tofixed charges  **1.7****x**  **2.4****x**  **3.6****x**  **4.2****x**  **3.9****x**  **2.5****x**
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

July 27, 2017

v No. 331954

Saginaw Circuit Court

LARRY DUANE CURRINGTON, LC No. 14-040592-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring). 

I concur with the majority in all respects but one. Because I agree that the challenged 

statement from Detective Scott was harmless irrespective of whether it was hearsay, I would 

simply presume that it was hearsay and decline to decide that issue. The majority includes a 

paragraph that begins with “Further, even if the challenged testimony were hearsay and thus 

admitted in error . . . ” it did not affect “the outcome of the trial.” Thus, I see no reason to make 

that decision with the limited facts in this case. In all other respects, I concur. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
## SERVE D SEPTEMBE R23 , 201 0 j::^mRTMENTO F U.S
. DEPARTMEN

T O FTRANSPORTATIO

N' '^-?o9!rL¥P' ^ OFFICEO

FHEARINGS ' ' - ' 'JPEnATION S WASHINGTON , D C v-:!. ! ^E P / U AS : 2 8 I NTH EMATTE RO F FEDERA LEXPRES S CORPORATIO N FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP10NM000 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S NO
. FAA-2010-079 0

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G
Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designate dCas e No
. 2009NM700056 ) ha s bee nassigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC
. Goodwin
. Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do nth e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o n th e attache dservic e list
. S O ORDERED
.

\~_JiQiuMCvA.
. Yode r - - ^ Chie f Administrativ e La w Jud j Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP10NM000 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Hearin g Docke t Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-430 ' Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g -Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Davi dJ
. Bronczek , Presiden t Federal Expres s Corporation , Responden t n d Floo r Delivery Cod e 7622 , Bld g G , 2 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , S'*

* Floo r Memphis , nS r

3812 5 Cynthi aChandler-Snell , Respondent' s Counse l Feder ^ Expres s Corporatio n Regulatory Division 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa d Buildin g B , V

^ Floo r Memphis , T N 3812 5 TEL : 901-434-836 1 FAX : 901-434-828 3 Scot t R
. Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W
. Renton,W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor s Roo mE12

- 32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followio g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g -Suit e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
Before the Third Division,

April 17, 1946

No. 51025.

#### Petition 6407-R of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From the evidence presented the court was of the opinion that there was nothing connected with the invoice papers nor any facts or circumstances known to the petitioner which would cause a reasonable man to question the correctness of the prices shown upon the invoices. In view of the fact that this was the first time the values of such merchandise had been questioned by the appraiser and inasmuch as the petitioner, as well as all parties concerned, made a full and candid disclosure of all of the facts known to them, it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.2
AMENDMENT NO. 1 
TO 
TENNECO INC. 
2006 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
(As Amended and Restated Effective March 18, 2013)
WHEREAS, Tenneco Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Tenneco Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as amended and restated effective March 18, 2013, the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that it is advisable to amend the Plan on the terms set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the power reserved to the Board of Directors by Article 8 of the Plan, the Plan be and is amended, effective October 10, 2016, by substituting the following for subsection 8.3 of the Plan:
“8.3.    Tax Withholding.  All distributions under the Plan shall be subject to withholding of all applicable taxes, and the Committee may condition the delivery of any shares or other benefits under the Plan on satisfaction of the applicable withholding obligations. Except as otherwise provided by the Committee, such withholding obligations may be satisfied (a) through cash payment by the Participant, (b) through the surrender of shares of Common Stock which the Participant already owns, or (c) through the surrender of shares of Common Stock to which the Participant is otherwise entitled under the Plan; provided, however, that (i) the amount withheld in the form of shares of Common Stock under this Section 8.3 may not exceed the minimum statutory withholding obligation (based on the minimum statutory withholding rates for Federal and state purposes, including, without limitation, payroll taxes) unless otherwise elected by the Participant, (ii) in no event shall the Participant be permitted to elect less than the minimum statutory withholding obligation, and (iii) in no event shall the Participant be permitted to elect to have an amount withheld in the form of shares of Common Stock pursuant to this Section 8.3 that exceeds the maximum individual tax rate for the employee in applicable jurisdictions.”
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4622]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-41-000]


Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company Of 
Indiana, Inc.; Notice of Filing

March 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Commonwealth Edison Company 
(ComEd) on behalf of itself and it wholly-owned subsidiary Commonwealth 
Edison Company of Indiana, Inc., filed a petition of declaratory order 
requesting the Commission to approve specific incentive rate treatments 
for recent major transmission projects that ComEd has undertaken 
pursuant to the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s Regional Transmission 
Expansion Plan.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#de989b8c9d91b0b2b7b0bb8dabaeaeb1acaa9eb8bbacbdf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84c2c1d6c7cbeae8edeae1d7f1f4f4ebf6f0c4e2e1f6e7aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4622 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS VALUATION EXPERTS

April 6,
2004

Witness
Systems, Inc.
300 Colonial Center Parkway
Roswell, Georgia 30076

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

We
hereby consent to the use of the name Taylor Consulting Group, Inc. and of references to Taylor Consulting Group, Inc. and to the inclusion of and references to our
report, or information contained therein, dated March 31, 2003, prepared for Witness Systems, Inc. in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Witness Systems, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Sincerely,
Taylor Consulting Group, Inc.

/s/
MICHAEL HALLIWELL

Michael
Halliwell
Managing Director

---



QuickLinks
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

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2227 DFL KJM P

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On June 26, 2006, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on October 20, 2004 and February 10, 2006. All requests

were denied. For the same reasons set forth in the prior denials, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2006 request for appointment of counsel is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be filed within thirty days of the filed date

of this order.

DATED: July 18, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp epps2227.31thr

Case 2:04-cv-02227-DFL -KJM Document 18 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             617
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,276
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                21,644
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,090
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          71,267
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            71,435
<LOANS>                                        194,095
<ALLOWANCE>                                        754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,922
<DEPOSITS>                                     257,544
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,755
<LONG-TERM>                                        528
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,196
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 313,922
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,545
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,147
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,222
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,232
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,915
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        2
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,330
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     2.6
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,500
<LOANS-PAST>                                        19
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   752
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  754
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            754
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION




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


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's
knowledge and belief, that:




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form
10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      April 15,2009/s/M.
      Carolyn EllisM. Carolyn Ellis, Chief Financial
      Officer(Principal Financial
      Officer)


A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Document Capture
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Document Capture Technologies, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





- 49 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0301 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM G . ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 3 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 28 2020

12/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0301
Before the Third Division,

January 11, 1943

No. 47900.

#### Protest 61695-K of Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that this merchandise .was weighed by the Government weigher and also on behalf of the importer, by public weighmasters. From the testimony it was clearly apparent that the bags did not contain uniform quantities of sesame seed and that the Government weigher proceeded contrary to regulations in not requiring the entire shipment to be weighed. It was found that the shipment in question weighs net 446,522)4 pounds rather than 450,405 pounds, as reported by the Government weigher. The collector was directed to reliquidate the entry and make refund accordingly.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2202

_____________________________
G LENN D AVIS , Appellant,

v.

P EI S TAFFING LLC
, W ASTE M ANAGEMENT , I NC

. O F F LORIDA , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Jack A. Weiss , Judge

.
Date of Accident: October 28, 2015.

March 1, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and K ELSEY and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Bill McCabe, Longwood; Wade B. Coye and Atiya T. Munroe of Coye Law Firm, Orlando
, for Appellant.

Vanessa J. Johnson and Warren K. Sponsler of Sponsler, Bishop, Koren & Hamer, P.A., Tampa ; Robert C. Barrett, Kelley A. Richards, and Gabriela C. Sifontes of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahu e , McClain & Mangan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee s

.
| Subsidiaries’ or Affiliate’s Name                      |   | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orOrganization |   | Percentage of Ownership |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                                                              |   |                                                  |   |                              |
| World      Through Limited (“WTL”)                               |   | British      Virgin Islands                           |   | 100%      by Sunway Global Inc.   |
| Sunway      World Through Technology (Daqing) Co., Ltd. (“SWT”)  |   | PRC                                                   |   | 100%      by WTL                  |
| *Daqing      Sunway Technology Co., Ltd.                                          |   | PRC                                                   |   | 100%      by SWT                  |
|                                                                              |   |                                                  |   |                              |
| Beijing      Sunway New-Force Medical Treatment Tech Co., Ltd.                    |   | PRC                                                   |   | 100%      by SWT                  |
|                                                                              |   |                                                  |   |                              |
| *Deemed      variable interest entity                                             |   |                                                  |   |                              |

----
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-227.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Assistance 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and NORWAY 

Signed at Stavanger June 8, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
NORWAY 

Defense: Assistance 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Stavanger June 8, 2005; 

 Entered into force February 27, 2007.
#### Charles Mussey *versus*Peter Pierre.

An alien acquires no life estate in the lands of his wife by virtue of *his*marriage ; and a levy thereupon as the estate of the husband gives no title to the creditor.

On March 24, 1839, Reuben Ruby conveyed the demanded premises to Elizabeth Pierre, the wife of Peter Pierre, who *560was then an alien and has not since been naturalized. On Jan. 7, 1843, the demandant levied upon the life estate of Pierre to satisfy an execution against him. This action is a writ of entry against Pierre.

*Fessenden, Deblois &f Fessenden*argued for the tenant,

citing 12 Mass. R. 348; 2 Kent, 53; 1 Cruise, 164; 7 Cranch, 619; Year Books, 11 Hen. 4, 26 and 14 Hen. 4, 20; Co. Lit. 2 (b).

*Rand*argued for the demandant,

and cited Stearns on Real Actions, 195, and Rev. St. c. 145, $ 9.

The opinion of the Court was by

Whitman C. J.

This is a writ of entry. The defendant pleads *nul disseizin,*with a brief statement, setting forth that, although his wife is seized of the demanded premises in fee; yet that he, being an alien, has nothing therein. It is not controverted that he is an alien; and it is admitted, that the fee in the estate is in his wife. In such case it is not easy to perceive how he can be held amenable in this process. He, in right of his wife, is not seized of any estate therein. He could not become a tenant by the curtesy; and could not lawfully convey or lease the same ; nor could it be legally attached, as in anywise pertaining to him. The claim of the plaintiff, therefpre, being under and by virtue of an attachment and levy upon it, as a life estate in the defendant, cannot be upheld.

The estate, however, seems to have been conveyed to the wife during coverture ; and perhaps, was paid for by him, so as to create a resulting trust for his benefit. If such was the case, possibly, it might be reached by a process in equity, and be made responsible for his debts. As to this, however, we give no opinion.

*Default taken*off.— *and plaintiff nonsuit.*