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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

               CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<Table>
<Caption>
                                               1998      1999      2000      2001       2002
                                              -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
                                                               (IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                           <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Income available for fixed charges:
  Income (loss) from continuing operations
     before taxes...........................  $49,755   $ 1,021   $(6,490)  $ 5,053   $(12,586)
  Fixed charges.............................    1,305    23,989    44,290    38,492     34,747
                                              -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
                                               51,060    25,010    37,800    43,545     22,161
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense..........................      634    23,194    43,341    37,756     34,126
  Interest portion of rent expense..........      671       795       949       736        621
                                              -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
                                                1,305    23,989    44,290    38,492     34,747
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........     39.1x      1.0x         (a)     1.1x         (b)
</Table>

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

(a) The Company's earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges for the pro
    forma year ended December 31, 2000 by approximately $6,490.

(b) The Company's earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges for the pro
    forma year ended December 31, 2002 by approximately $12,586.
#### SHAHMOON INDUSTRIES, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 93 *N. J. Super. 272.*

*Messrs.*Kaufman, *Kaufman & Kaufmam*and *Mr. Howard Spear*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Theodore A. Schwartz*for the respondent.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
124 STAT. 3326 PUBLIC LAW 111–313—DEC. 18, 2010 

Public Law 111–313 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Truth in Fur Labeling Act 

of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTION TO FUR PRODUCT LABELING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTS CONTAINING RELATIVELY 

SMALL QUANTITIES OR VALUES OF FUR. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(d) of the Fur Products Labeling 

Act (15 U.S.C. 69(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘; except that’’ and 

all that follows through ‘‘contained therein’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR DISCRETE SALES BY NON-RETAILERS. 

Section 3 of the Fur Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 69a) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) No provision of this Act shall apply to a fur product— 

‘‘(1) the fur of which was obtained from an animal through 

trapping or hunting; and 

‘‘(2) when sold in a face to face transaction at a place 

such as a residence, craft fair, or other location used on a 

temporary or short term basis, by the person who trapped 

or hunted the animal, where the revenue from the sale of 

apparel or fur products is not the primary source of income 

of such person.’’. 

SEC. 4. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REVIEW OF FUR PRODUCTS 

NAME GUIDE. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall publish in the Federal 

Register notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, a review 

of the Fur Products Name Guide (16 CFR 301.0). 

SEC. 5. PAYGO COMPLIANCE. 

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 

with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined 

by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 

PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

Deadline. 

Federal Register, 

publication. 

Notice. 

15 USC 69 note. 

15 USC 69 note. 

Truth in Fur 

Labeling Act of 

2010. 

Dec. 18, 2010 

[H.R. 2480] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–313—DEC. 18, 2010 124 STAT. 3327 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2480: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111–571 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

July 28, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Approved December 18, 2010. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
& / 5V.T

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 03-13-00589-CR OFFENSE: OTHER CRIMINAL

Roger Eugene Fain v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Williamson

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 26th District Court

DATE: 5/7/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 95-112-K277

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Roger Eugene Fain v. The S

STYLE: Texas

tate of

Petition

CCA# (zlSmf£

?dDSE

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

k^FU6£& JUDGE:

DATE: ^/^y//r SIGNED: PC:

JUDGE: hH (Jyi^A^-^ PUBLISH: DNP:

-

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
No. 45050.

#### Protest 43765-K, of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the opera glasses in question were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 228 (b) by virtue of the trade agreement with France.
Before the Third Division,

SEPTEMBER 26, 1945

No. 50516.

#### Protests 24252-K, etc., of American Trading Co., Ltd., et al. (Honolulu) .

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respect's to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1705 as kelp and other items were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
EXHIBIT 32.2CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Annual Report of Global Energy Group, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10- KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.        September 29, 2004 /s/ John R. Bailey   John R. Bailey   President, Chief Operating Officerand Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 4.8

                            CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY

    THIS CERTIFIES THAT          GLENCORE AG               is the
                       -----------------------------------

registered holder of  FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND fully paid and nonassessable  Shares
                    -----------------------------------------------------

   of 8% Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $.01 per share, of
                            Century Aluminum Company

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
      or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
      signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be
      hereunto affixed this    second    day of     April        A.D. 2001
                            -------------       ------------------



   /s/ Daniel J. Krofcheck                          /s/ Gerald J. Kitchen
 ---------------------------                       -------------------------
        Treasurer                                   Executive Vice President


                                     [SEAL]

<PAGE>   2
For Value Received,        hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto                                                 Shares
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute
and appoint

                                                                    Attorney
to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.

     Dated                           19

               In presence of




   NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
     WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
               ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.



THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND SPECIAL RIGHTS OF THE SHARES
REPRESENTED HEREBY ARE AS SET FORTH IN THE CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION,
PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS, A COPY OF WHICH MAY BE OBTAINED, WITHOUT CHARGE,
FROM THE CORPORATION.
# E/'ECUT/VE

< 

# FL!TEWAVS
February 4, 2013 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Exemption 10289 ONE CLARKDRIVE, RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 (631) 588-3480 ext. 128 fax: (631) 588-5527

Regulatory Docket No: FAA-2011-0098 To Whom It May Concern: Executive Fliteways, Inc. is currently operating with Exemption No: 10289 and has received notice of its planned expiration on 07/31/2013. Iwould request an extension of this exemption for the maximum allowable duration. There have been no changes to our operations or equipment that would have a negative effect on our ability to safely operate underthis exemption. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me atyour earliest convenience. Regards,

Kenneth S. Gray Director ofOperations

. t · ···**·r~··,** / · :L' ":**:~;** r,.**··.~.r~** .. ,·,.. . -·. '

. f**-~** ·: ,:, •'
|   | (i)    |   | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                           |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|                           |   |                                 |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   /s/ Gordon Reykdal |   |
| Name:                          |   | Gordon Reykdal                       |   |
| Title:                         |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date:                     |   | November 24, 2010                    |   |
#### Wagner Appeal.

Argued May 8, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Harry N. Moran, Jr.,*with him *James N. Peek,*for appellants.

*Morris L. Rush,*with liim *Irving L. Mazer,*for appellees.

October 9, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.
Before the Third Division,

March 8, 1951

No. 55335.

#### Schenley Distilleries, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 119768-K (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 65607.

#### Border Brokerage Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/22172 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks *473the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Adam Classman, Appellant, v Lear Publishing, Inc., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 299]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered January 20, 1995, after a nonjury trial, finding for the defendant and dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*181Plaintiff was employed by defendant pursuant to a letter agreement under which plaintiff was to receive a salary raise after four months, "[a]ssuming the initial period of employment goes well.” Plaintiff contended at trial that he was to receive the raise automatically if he were still employed after four months, while defendant interpreted the language to mean that plaintiff would receive a raise only if the magazine became profitable. This factual question was determined by the trial court in defendant’s favor after considering the context in which the words were used, the relations of the parties and the surrounding circumstances (see, *Bray Terms, v Grand Union Co.,*74 AD2d 965, 966). We cannot say that the court’s construction was against the weight of the evidence. The court found that soon after the four months of plaintiff’s employment had expired, he met with defendant’s founder and editor-in-chief to discuss the proposed salary increase. Plaintiff was then given the option of leaving with a full severance package, or staying on at his original salary, and he elected to stay. The court’s finding of waiver is supported by the circumstance that plaintiff did not raise the salary increase issue again until his employment was terminated two years later. We note, as did the Trial Justice, that plaintiff’s severance package was calculated on the basis of plaintiff’s starting salary, not the proposed increased salary. "A waiver * * * may be accomplished by express agreement or by such conduct or failure to act as to evince an intent not to claim the purported advantage.” *(Hadden v Consolidated Edison Co.,*45 NY2d 466, 469.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    CAROLINE
BEASLEY                                                          
|                     |  |  |  | Caroline Beasley Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
No. 47960.

#### Protests 622044-G, etc., of Orchid Importing Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Upon the agreed facts that the merchandise consists of hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the protests were sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1689

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEWIS F. CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District 

Judge. (3:15-cv-00161-MHL)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis F. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Grace Gregory, Joan 

Iris Oppenheimer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lewis F. Carter appeals from the district court’s orders 

granting summary judgment in favor of the United States on its 

action seeking to reduce to judgment Carter’s unpaid liabilities 

for income taxes, penalties, and interest for the years 1997 to 

2000, 2002 to 2006, 2008, and 2009, and denying his multiple 

postjudgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Carter, No. 3:15-cv00161-MHL (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2015; Apr. 29, 2016). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GENE HURT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued January 9, 1967

Decided March 27, 1967.

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*County Prosecutor of Essex County, argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Barry H.*
      *115
      *Evenchich,*Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

*Mr. Daniel E. Isles*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Querques &*Isles, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted in 1963 for the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses. The indictment is not included in the appendix nor have we been furnished with the date of the alleged crime. It appears from the argument of counsel in the trial court that defendant was convicted in 1957 or 1958 of the crime of violating the law forbidding lotteries in New Jersey. Neither the record of that conviction nor the sentence imposed appears in the appendix. The trial court on defendant’s pretrial motion barred proof of the conviction for purposes of attacking defendant’s credibility under *N. J. S.*2A:81—12. The order granting the motion was based on *State v. Hawthorne,*90 *N. J. Super.*545 *(Cty. Ct.*1966), which this Court has reversed today. 49 *N. J.*130 (1967). Eor the reasons expressed therein, the order in this case must be reversed also.

In addition to the grounds relied upon by the trial court in *State v.*Hawthorne, the trial judge here pointed out that the statute, *N. J. S.*2A:81-12, permitted proof of convictions of “crime” to affect credibility. He expressed the view that “crime” referred only to an offense involving moral turpitude. And since in his judgment violation of the lottery statute did not involve moral turpitude, a conviction thereof was not admissible for purposes of impeachment. We disagree.

The statutes prohibiting lotteries *(N. J. S.*2A:121—1, 2, 3 and 4, *i.*e., sale or offer or agreement to sell lottery tickets or shares in a lottery, the advertising of lotteries, participation in any way in a lottery, knowing possession of any paper, etc. pertaining to the business of *116a lottery, or knowingly permitting a lottery to lie carried on on one’s premises) all make violation a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a criminal offense punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in Few Jersey.State Prison for not more than three years, or both. *N. J. S.*2A:85-7. Such an offense is a crime within the meaning of *N. J. S.*2A:81-12, which makes proof of conviction of “any crime” admissible to affect credibility, regardless of any question of moral turpitude. See, *State v. Doyle,*42 *N. J.*334, 346, 349 (1964); *State v. Henson,*66 *N. J. L.*601, 605-607 *(E. & A.*1901). Clearly one who has been convicted of violating the lottery statutes has been convicted of a crime within the contemplation of *N. J. S.*2A:81-12.

Reversed and remanded for trial.

Jacobs and Schettino, JJ., concur in result.

*For reversal and*remandment—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman—7.

*For*affirmance•—Fone.
#### SELMA GLUCK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. PETER FREUND KNITTING MILLS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Argued February 17, 1964

Decided March 17, 1964.

*61
      *Mr. Arnold M. Stein*argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Louis Hoberman,*attorney; *Mr. Hyman Hoberman*and *Messrs. Stein & Einhorn,*of counsel).

*Mr. John W. Taylor*argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. Charles P. Horton,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Curiam.

The Workmen’s Compensation Division applied the death dependency rates which were in force at the time of the decedent’s death. On appeal the County Court took the position that the rates in force at the time of the accident in 1954 rather than the death in 1958 were controlling. *N. J. S. A.*34:15-13. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Division and we certified before argument there. Under the holding in *McAllister v. Bd. of Ed., Town of Kearny,*79 *N. J. Super.*249 *(App. Div.*1963), aff’d 41 *N. J.*117 (1964), the County Court’s position was erroneous. Its judgment is therefore set aside and the award as rendered in the Workmen’s Compensation Division is reinstated.

Reversed.

*For reversal*•— Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Sciiettino and Haneman — 7.

*For affirmance*— Hone.