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

                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three
                                                   Months
                                                   Ended                     Year Ended September 30,
                                                 December 31,   -------------------------------------------------
                                                     2002         2002          2001          2000         1999
                                                 ------------   --------      --------      --------      -------
<S>                                              <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                       $34,495      $ 73,665      $ 79,568      $ 82,882      $63,139
Interest expense                                     4,251        16,365        18,724        18,135       17,317
Amortization of debt discount and expense               84           287           264           218          215
Interest component of rental expense                   358         1,563         1,541         1,318        1,539
                                                   -------      --------      --------      --------      -------
                                                   $39,188      $ 91,880      $100,097      $102,553      $82,210
                                                   =======      ========      ========      ========      =======

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                   $ 4,251      $ 16,365      $ 18,724      $ 18,135      $17,317
Amortization of debt discount and expense               84           287           264           218          215
Allowance for funds used during
      construction (capitalized interest)               10            19            12            17           36
Interest component of rental expense                   358         1,563         1,541         1,318        1,539
                                                   -------      --------      --------      --------      -------
                                                   $ 4,703      $ 18,234      $ 20,541      $ 19,688      $19,107
                                                   =======      ========      ========      ========      =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    8.33          5.04          4.87          5.21         4.30
                                                   =======      ========      ========      ========      =======
</TABLE>
# C_2016462EN.01000602.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

(Case C-294/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(a) - Material scope - Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses - Article 3(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ - Scope))

(2016/C 462/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edyta Mikołajczyk

Applicant:

Defendants: Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003.

| 2. | The fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a person other than one of the spouses who brings an action for annulment of marriage may not rely on the grounds of jurisdiction set out in those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a person other than one of the spouses who brings an action for annulment of marriage may not rely on the grounds of jurisdiction set out in those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
No. 39062.

#### Protests 942818-G, etc., of S. S. Kresge Co. (New York).

*352Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was found that the articles in question are in chief value of papier máché similar to those the subject of *Strauss-Eckardt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48272). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was therefore sustained.
# C_2016038EN.01003401.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 November 2015 — J.N.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-601/15)

(2016/C 038/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J.N.

Appellant:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Other party:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96) valid in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1):

| 1. | in a situation where a third-country national has been detained pursuant to Article 8(3)(e) of that directive and, under Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60), has the right to remain in a Member State until a decision on his asylum application has been made at first instance, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

in a situation where a third-country national has been detained pursuant to Article 8(3)(e) of that directive and, under Article 9 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60), has the right to remain in a Member State until a decision on his asylum application has been made at first instance, and

| 2. | in view of the Explanation (OJ 2007 C 303, p. [19]) that the limitations which may legitimately be imposed on the rights in Article 6 of the Charter may not exceed those permitted by the European Convention on Human Rights in the wording of its Article 5[(1)](f), and in the light of the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights of the latter provision in, inter alia, the judgment of 22 September 2015 in Nabil and Others v Hungary, 62116/12, according to which the detention of an asylum-seeker is contrary to the aforementioned Article 5(1)(f) if such detention was not imposed with a view to removal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

in view of the Explanation (OJ 2007 C 303, p. [19]) that the limitations which may legitimately be imposed on the rights in Article 6 of the Charter may not exceed those permitted by the European Convention on Human Rights in the wording of its Article 5[(1)](f), and in the light of the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights of the latter provision in, inter alia, the judgment of 22 September 2015 in Nabil and Others v Hungary, 62116/12, according to which the detention of an asylum-seeker is contrary to the aforementioned Article 5(1)(f) if such detention was not imposed with a view to removal?

Nabil and Others

Hungary

---
Position: not available

| Limit list of images |
|----------------------|
|                      |  |  |

----

ngdc.dmsp@noaa.gov
No. 48070.

#### Protest 805285-G of DeBoer & Livingston (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 44140 the glass atomizers in question were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 218(f) as claimed.
EXHIBIT 10.3.3

Amendment to 1983 Cash Bonus Deferral Program and
1984 Cash Bonus Deferral Program

By authority of the resolution adopted by unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of Union Carbide Corporation as of August 30, 2004, the following
amendment to the 1983 Cash Bonus Deferral Program and 1984 Cash Bonus Deferral Program is made.

Effective
August 30, 2004 Section 7 Beneficiaries is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



| |  | /s/EDWARD W. RICHEdward W. Rich
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Reviewed by Plan Administrator                                       
| |  | /s/KATHY RASSETTEKathy Rassette                                      
| |  | Reviewed by Legal Department                                         
| |  | /s/KAREN BECKWITHK. L. Beckwith                                      

Dated: September 10, 2004

26

---



QuickLinks
No. 62055.

#### W. H. Schaefer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 283652-K and 287002-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monofilament fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60183, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8282)

#### J. Einstein, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 771999.

(Decided January 28, 1954)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter (Howard Clare Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney Genera], for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for appraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to approval of the court;

> *582(1) That the merchandise marked “A” on the invoices, and initialed TJM (Examiner’s Initials) by Customs Examiner T. J. McCarthy (Examiner’s Name), involved in the above-named appeal to reappraisement, consists of kid leather exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificate of pending reappraisement.

> (2) That said merchandise marked “A” is such or similar to merchandise which, when sold or offered for sale in France for exportation to the United States in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique Tax) as added on entry, packed.

> (3) That merchandise such as or similar to the imported merchandise marked “A”, when sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique Tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> (4) That all other claims of the plaintiff, as raised by this appeal, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation this case is submitted.

On the agreed facts I find tbe foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the kid leather represented on the invoice by the items marked *“A”*and initialed TJM by examiner T. J. McCarthy, and that such values were the appraised values, less the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 44221.

#### Protests 880176-G (B), etc., of Philip Lien (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods,, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
Before the Second Division,

January 10, 1941

No. 45151.

#### Protest 23527-K of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed by counsel that the merchandise consists of woven mufflers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 44055. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was therefore sustained.
#### Pacific Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 8021.

Entered at San Francisco, Calif.

Entry No. 128, etc.

(Decided June 29, 1951)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That as to merchandise involved herein, marked “A” on the invoices and initialed E. C. K. by Customs Examiner E. C. Knowlton, the market value or price, at the time of exportation, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoiced unit prices, packed.

> 2) That at the time of exportation there was no higher foreign value for this merchandise and that the appraisement made under authority of the Presidential proclamation published in TD 46158 was not applicable to said merchandise, based upon the decisions in RDs 4444 and 4570.

> 3) That the appeals herein be submitted on this stipulation, being limited to items marked “A” as aforesaid.

*400On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed E. O. K. by Examiner E. C. Knowlton, and that such values were the invoiced unit prices, packed. .

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 53207.

#### American Cyanamid Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145570-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**UnionCarbide Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Patrick E. Gottschalk,President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Carbide Corporation (the “Corporation”),certify that:

 

1.               theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended March31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ PATRICK E.  GOTTSCHALK             |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick E. Gottschalk                  |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| Date:  April 29, 2008                  |   |

 

35

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.O.1

                          [EL PASO ENERGY LETTERHEAD]



                                 March 18, 1999



El Paso Energy Corporation
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002

To Whom It May Concern:

     This letter shall acknowledge that I hereby waive any right that I may
have to terminate my employment with El Paso Energy Corporation (the "Company")
for "Good Reason" under my Employment Agreement dated July 31, 1992, as
amended, and under Section 2.10(a) of the Company's Key Executive Severance
Protection Plan by reason of my no longer serving as Chairman of the Board of
the Company following the merger of the Company and Sonat Inc. until the
earlier of: (1) January 1, 2001 or (2) Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr. ceasing to serve as
Chairman of the Company. In addition, I hereby waive my right under my
Employment Agreement to have my base salary automatically reinstated as a
result of the transaction with Sonat Inc.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             /s/ WILLIAM A. WISE
                                             ------------------------
                                                 William A. Wise
Mississippi

Missouri

Wabash

Maumee

Ohio

Fort Detroit

Fort Niagara

Clark

Hamilton

LAKE

MICHIGAN

LAKE

HURON

LAKE

ERIE

LAKE

ONTARIO

NEW YORK

KENTUCKY

COUNTRY

OHIO

COUNTRY

ILLINOIS

COUNTRY

PENNSYLVANIA

Province of

QUÉBEC

LOUISIANA

VIRGINIA

Boonesborough

Lexington

Harrodsburg

Site of

Fort Massac

Cahokia

Saint Louis July 6 1778

Sainte Genevieve

Prairie du Rocher

Vincennes

(Fort Sackville)

July 20 1778

Dec 17 1778

Feb 25 1779

Corn Island

at the Falls

of the Ohio

Redstone

Pittsburgh

(Forks of the Ohio)

Kaskaskia

July 4 1778

American troops 

British troops

0

0

100 Miles

100 Kilometers North

1778-1779
# C_2015311EN.01001301.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/13

---

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 3/15)

(2015/C 311/15)

Language of procedure: all the official languages

Applicant

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, B. Hartmann, J. Samnadda, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Question submitted to the Court

Does the European Union have exclusive competence to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled?

---
August 12, 1957

Reap. Dec. 8966.

#### *Elliot Import Corp.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.