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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                         WORLDCOM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                            AND PREFERENCE DIVIDENDS
                                  (IN MILLIONS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Year Ended December 31,
                                                  -------------------------------------------------
                                                    1996       1997      1998       1999      2000
                                                  -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
<S>                                               <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>
EARNINGS:
Pretax income (loss) from continuing operations   $(2,272)   $   578   $(1,590)   $ 7,164   $ 7,568
Fixed charges, net of capitalized interest            315        500       774      1,098     1,120
                                                  -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
      Earnings                                    $(1,957)   $ 1,078   $  (816)   $ 8,262   $ 8,688
                                                  =======    =======   =======    =======   =======

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest cost                                     $   308    $   538   $   928    $ 1,287   $ 1,480
Amortization of financing costs                         4          2        12         18        26
Interest factor of rent expense                        19         47        78        132       149
Preference dividends                                   20         63        67        115       103
                                                  -------    -------   -------    -------   -------
      Fixed charges                               $   351    $   650   $ 1,085    $ 1,552   $ 1,758
                                                  =======    =======   =======    =======   =======

Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges           $(2,308)   $  --     $(1,901)   $  --     $  --

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)               --       1.66:1      --       5.32:1    4.94:1
                                                  =======    =======   =======    =======   =======
</TABLE>

----------
(1)   For the purpose of computing the ratio of earnings to combined fixed
      charges and preference dividends, earnings consist of pre-tax income
      (loss) from continuing operations, excluding minority interests in
      gains/losses of consolidated subsidiaries, and fixed charges consist of
      pre-tax interest (including capitalized interest) on all indebtedness,
      amortization of debt discount and expense, that portion of rental expense
      that we believe to be representative of interest, and distributions on
      subsidiary trust and other mandatorily redeemable preferred securities and
      preferred dividends, both of which have been grossed up to a pre-tax basis
      utilizing our effective tax rate.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1525 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1525

 To ensure that commercial insurers cannot engage in price fixing, bid 
  rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of competition and 
                               consumers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2005

Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. 
   Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Obama, and Ms. 
   Mikulski) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that commercial insurers cannot engage in price fixing, bid 
  rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of competition and 
                               consumers.

    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 ``Medical Malpractice Insurance 
Antitrust Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq., commonly known as the 
``McCarran-Ferguson Act'') shall be construed to permit commercial 
insurers to engage in any form of price fixing, bid rigging, or market 
allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing 
medical malpractice insurance.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION TO ACTIVITIES OF STATE COMMISSIONS OF INSURANCE AND 
              OTHER STATE INSURANCE REGULATORY BODIES.

    This Act does not apply to the information gathering and rate 
setting activities of any State commissions of insurance, or any other 
State regulatory body with authority to set insurance rates.
                                 <all>
```
Office of Water • EPA 817- F-07-009 Revised March 2008• www.epa.gov/watersecurity

Water Sector Incident Command System (ICS) and 

 National Incident Management System (NIMS) 

 Training 

Why is Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training being offered? 

Feedback from utilities, states, EPA regions, and other 

stakeholders indicates that water sector-specific ICS and 

NIMS training remains a priority. This new 1-day ICS and 

NIMS workshop sponsored by the EPA Water Security 

Division will help water and wastewater utilities to better 

understand ICS, integrate with other first responders 

within an expanding ICS structure, and implement NIMS 

concepts and principles that will help utilities provide 

mutual aid and assistance to one another. 

What is ICS?

ICS, or the Incident Command System, is a standardized, on-scene, all hazard incident 

management concept. ICS allows its users to adopt an integrated organizational structure to 

match the complexities and demands of single or multiple incidents without being hindered by 

jurisdictional boundaries.

What is NIMS? 

NIMS, or the National Incident Management System, is a consistent nationwide template that 

enables all government and non-governmental organizations to work together during domestic 

incidents. NIMS requires all agencies to use ICS when responding to incidents. 

What topics will be covered at the Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training?

The ICS/NIMS training will cover: 

• ICS basics • Unified and Area Command 

• NIMS overview • Mutual Aid and Assistance 

Why should I attend the Water Sector ICS/NIMS 

Training? 

First, it is vital to understand ICS, as this incident management system is 

the national standard for responding to any incident anywhere in the U.S. Second, using ICS is 

required by NIMS. Third, understanding NIMS is an important step for establishing utility 

mutual aid networks. Finally, FEMA IS-100 (Introductory ICS) and IS-700 (NIMS, An 

Introduction) certifications will be available to all participants. In some locations, CEUs will also 

be offered. 

Who should attend the Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training? 

Small, medium and large water and wastewater utilities, water sector trainers, state drinking water 

primacy agencies, state wastewater permitting agencies, and federal workers with an active role 

in water sector emergency response should attend this training. There is no fee to attend this 

training. 

What are the dates for the Water Sector ICS/NIMS Training?

Please log on to http://www.horsleywitten.com/ICStraining for a complete listing of locations and 

dates, to view a detailed agenda, and to register for a workshop.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 107805 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, 

Respondent, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WESLEY L. WOODS JR., 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.

__________

G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.

J. Anthony Jordon, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Sara E.

Fischer of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington

County (McKeighan, J.), rendered July 17, 2015, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted

assault in the second degree. 

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted assault in the

second degree. He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, in

accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to the minimum

prison term of 11⁄2 to 3 years, to run consecutively to the

sentence that he is currently serving. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of

representing defendant on the ground that there are no

nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our

review of the record and counsel's brief, we agree. Accordingly,
-2- 107805 

the judgment is affirmed and counsel's request for leave to

withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980

[1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v

Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to

be relieved of assignment granted.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
# L_2023238EN.01014001.xml

| 27.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 238/140 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 238/140

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2023/2065

of 25 September 2023

amending Decision (CFSP) 2021/710 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 33 and Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 29 April 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/710 (1), appointing Mr Sven KOOPMANS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East Peace Process. The EUSR’s mandate is to expire on 28 February 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 April 2021, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/710 (1), appointing Mr Sven KOOPMANS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East Peace Process. The EUSR’s mandate is to expire on 28 February 2025.

| (2) | With a view to achieving the policy objective set out in Decision (CFSP) 2021/710, to work towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace that should be achieved on the basis of a two-State solution, and in light of stepped up efforts with regional partners towards achieving that objective, additional staff should be recruited to the EUSR’s team. The financial reference amount should therefore be adapted accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

With a view to achieving the policy objective set out in Decision (CFSP) 2021/710, to work towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace that should be achieved on the basis of a two-State solution, and in light of stepped up efforts with regional partners towards achieving that objective, additional staff should be recruited to the EUSR’s team. The financial reference amount should therefore be adapted accordingly.

| (3) | The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 5(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2021/710 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 March 2023 to 28 February 2025 shall be EUR 289 782,33.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2023.

For the Council

The President

H. GÓMEZ HERNÁNDEZ

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/710 of 29 April 2021 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process (OJ L 147, 30.4.2021, p. 12).

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Mesa Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven W. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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:  | August 22,   2012 |                      | /s/Steven   W. Peterson |
|--------|------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                   |                      | Steven   W. Peterson    |
|   |                   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Genevieve GRAVANO, a/k/a Genevieve Bandowsky, Appellee.

No. 76-1321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 24, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of *Pope v. State,*268 So.2d 173 (Fla.2d DCA 1972).

BOARDMAN, C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 6th 

day of October, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Mike Alvin Ruiz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-15-00084-CR

Trial Court No. 1524608

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Mike Alvin Ruiz, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 2nd day of December, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
#### Kenneth J. ROTH, Appellant, v. Linda M. ROTH, Appellee.

No. 76-1763.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 1, 1977.

Law Offices of Kermit G. Kindred and Richard R. McCormack, Miami, for appellant.

Harry D. Dennis, Jr., Pompano Beach, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Krischer v. Krischer,*337 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); *Simmons v. Simmons,*192 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roosevelt McGEE.

No. 61211.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1978.

Dean A. Andrews, Jr., Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Raytheon Company ) ASBCA No. 61859

)

Under Contract No. W56HZV-11-C-0130 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Kevin P. Connelly, Esq.

Jeffrey M. Lowry, Esq.

 Vedder Price P.C.

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

LTC Abraham Young, JA

Frank A. March, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 23, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61859, Appeal of Raytheon 

Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 23, 2021

MARK A. MELNICK

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[106th Congress Private Law 18]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:pvtl018.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 3115]]

Private Law 106-18
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash. <<NOTE: Nov. 22, 2000 -  [S. 
                                 869]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MINA VAHEDI NOTASH.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mina Vahedi Notash shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mina Vahedi Notash enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

[[Page 114 STAT. 3116]]

    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mina Vahedi Notash, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the 
alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.

    Approved November 22, 2000.
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

137) IV-C-51 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:24 AM Sheet 137 of 142 
P.2 

r 

< 

D -2E 1 

o 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

A-90-37 

IV-C-51 

DEC 2 7 200! 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

-

[OCT 1.6 2002 

FPA AIR DOCKET .. 

V 

The Honorable John D. Dingell 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6115 

Dear Congressman Dingell: 

Thank you for your letter of October 12,2001, in which you raise several questions 

concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) program. I agree that NSR is a valuable program for clean air. 

The EPA has been conducting a review of the NSR program in response to a 

recommendation from the President's National Energy Policy Development Group. The EPA is 

examining the impact of the NSR regulations, including administrative interpretation and 

implementation, on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency 

and environmental protection. As part of this process, we have heard comments from over 

130,000 individuals and organizations. A number of these comments raise concerns very similar 

to those in your letter. Other commenters are very concerned that the environmental 

improvements associated with the NSR program not be lost as we seek to streamline the 

program. I assure you we are considering theso comrr.snts fully as we move forward. The EPA 

plans to report to the President on the impact of NSR on the three areas mentioned aoove. m 

that time we will make recommendations on whether improvements to the NSR program are 

needed to provide more flexibility and certainty, while ensuring protection of the environment. 

Your letter of October 12th posed detailed questions and requested documentation 

concerning various aspects of the NSR rules' exemption for activities that are "routine 

maintenance, repair and replacement." Enclosed with this letter is a response to those questions 

and documents requested. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
P.3 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Weyerhaeuser's Springfield Operations 

Potential Enforcement Action Against Masonite 

Corporation 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSD Definition 

of "Modification" 

NIPSCO 

PPG Lexington, NC 

10/17/1975 

Undated 

7/7/1986 

1/30/1990 

8/8/2001
#### Joyce Faciane Wife of/and John MARTIN v. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL et al.

No. 61373.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: Joyce Faciane wife of/and John Martin, applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 352 So.2d 351.

Denied.

TATE, DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., would grant.
#### JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. ROWLEY COMPANY, INC., and Louisiana Joint Underwriters of the Audubon Insurance Co.

No. 60991.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

In re: Jefferson Parish School Board applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 350 So.2d 187.

Denied.