alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| EXHIBIT 11.2                                          |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  |
| CPI Corp.                                             |
| Computation of Per Common Share Income (Loss) - Basic |
| (Unaudited)                                           |
|                                                  |

| in thousands, except share and per share data             |   | 12 Weeks Ended |       |   | 24 Weeks Ended |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|------------|--------|----------------|--------|
|                                                      |   | July 24, 2010  |       |   | July 25, 2009  |   |   | July 24, 2010 |   |   | July 25, 2009 |   |
| Basic:                                                    |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income (loss) applicable to common shares             |   | $              | (1,817     | )      |           | $      | (3,429 | ) |   | $ | 4,723 |   |   | $ | (1,099 | ) |
|                                                      |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shares:                                                   |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of common and                     |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| common equivalent shares outstanding                      |   |           | 9,452,312  |   |           |   | 9,180,835 |   |   |   | 9,377,597 |   |   |   | 9,390,707 |   |
| Less: Treasury stock - weighted average                   |   |           | (2,133,566 | )      |           |   | (2,175,591 | ) |   |   | (2,133,566 | ) |   |   | (2,413,686 | ) |
|                                                      |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of common and common              |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| equivalent shares outstanding                             |   |           | 7,318,746  |   |           |   | 7,005,244 |   |   |   | 7,244,031 |   |   |   | 6,977,021 |   |
|                                                      |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income (loss) per common and common equivalent shares |   | $              | (0.25      | )      |           | $      | (0.49 | ) |   | $ | 0.65 |   |   | $ | (0.16 | ) |
|                                                      |   |           |       |   |           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Congoleum Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard
N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (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.


May 12, 2006

/s/ Howard N. Feist III
-----------------------
Howard N. Feist III
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,325
<INVENTORY>                                        769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,685
<PP&E>                                         941,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                 661,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,437
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,518
<OTHER-SE>                                     151,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,969
<SALES>                                        257,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               257,313
<CGS>                                           81,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 99,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,704
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,631
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie James POLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-761.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 20

                                                             Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
              AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                                    Nine Months Ended   
                                                      September 30,    
                                                   1998          1997  
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:

  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                        $217,794      $147,683
  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                         376,116       366,037
  Implicit interest in rents                        8,314         8,012

Total earnings                                   $602,224      $521,732

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                        $376,116      $366,037
  Implicit interest in rents                        8,314         8,012

Total fixed charges                              $384,430      $374,049


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.57          1.39
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40982

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAUL JOE MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-14-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Paul Joe Martin

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a

Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
TI ORO Reporting Follow up 

Lehmberg, Laurie 

to: 

Kirsten Cappel 

10/16/200906:36 PM 

Cc: 

"Johnson, Cynthia (Washington DC)" 

Show Details 

Kirsten, 

Page 1 of2 

Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) appreciates the opportunity to further discuss our comments with EPA 

regarding the Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 16448 (Apr. 10,2009). To follow up 

on our October 13 conversation, we are providing suggestions' for process definition, considerations for how to 

establish process specific emission factors, and abatement destruction efficiency data. 

Process Definition: 

"Process" is best described far 200 and 300 mm technology as Etch and Deposition with subcategories of the 

significant process types under each. This level of delineation best addresses the parameters which contribute to 

process emissions. Further delineation would not provide additional accuracy of emissions it only highlights 

confidential business information. The following spreadsheet depicts these process definitions. 

Etch De Josition 

Dielectric 

Dielectric without 

Reagent Metal Dielectric Wafer Clean Metal with RPC RPC Thermal 

CF4 

CHF3 

C2F6 

C3F8 

c-C4F8 

SF6 

NF3 

Proposed process definitions 

Factors to be determined separately for different wafer diameters 

Process Spedfic Emission Factor 

The IPee 2006 default factors should be used for 1 SO mm facilities. IPee 2006 default factors should be used 

for 200 and 300 mm facilities which do not have Tier 3 factors in their possession. EPA should allow the 

facilities to rely upon test data that predates the 2006 ISMI Guideline. 

Over time, fab and wafer diameter specific process emiss~on factors could be developed for 200 and 300 mm tools 

where empirical data does not exist. Process emission factors could be estimated on a specific'tool platfonn and 

wafer diameter basis using analogous empirical data and/or process specific parameters. 
Page 2of2 

Abatement Destruction Removal Emcien~y 

Our abatement device manufacture has indicated that empirical data has been collected on equipment that has 

been in use for some period of time. As anticipated, CF4's DRE is minimized when the abatement device is not 

set up for that purpose. Additionally, the results confinned that the DRE for the other PFCs is equivalent to that 

which was guaranteed at purchase. 

TI appreciates the opportunity to provide input on these important issues and will make ourselves available to 

discuss these suggestions in more detail via teleconference at your convenience. 

l.aurie A. Lehmberg 

Texas Instruments Incorporated 

Worldwide Environmental, Safety, and Health 

(214) 567-3961 (Office) 

(972) 927-3020 (Fax) 

f-Iehmberg@ti.com A please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
<PAGE> 23

                                                                  Exhibit 12


           AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)




                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                        2001          2000
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $219,588      $197,583
  Interest expense                                     324,204       327,654
  Implicit interest in rents                             8,482         8,193

Total earnings                                        $552,274      $533,430


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $324,204      $327,654
  Implicit interest in rents                             8,482         8,193

Total fixed charges                                   $332,686      $335,847


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.66          1.59
EPA Meeting with Region 6 States February 29, 2012 On the morning of the February 29, EPA staff gave a short presentation on the proposed UST regulation to state staff from region 6 states

. EPA staff emphasized several times prior, during and after the presentation, that if the States wanted to made comments on the regulation they needed to formally

submit as outlined in the proposed regulation by an y of the methods provided. There were a number of q uestions and we answered with what was contained in the proposal and again reiterated that they needed to formally

comment to include any

of their comments in the public record.

**Attendees:** 

### Region 6 STA**TE UST INSPECTOR MA NA**  **GER & SENIOR STA FF MEETING** 

**Name Agenc**  **y**
Anton Rozsypal TCEQ Audray Lincoln EPA Region 6 Cari Bing TCEQ Christy Cherrett EPA Region 6 Dana Bahar NMED Heather Mann EPA Region 6 Joe W omack EPA Region 6 Kalvin Martin NMED PSTB Larry Brown OCC PSTD Larry Thomas EPA Region 6 Robin Hughes EPA OUST Samuel Broussard LDEQ Sherry Fuerst EPA Region 6 Tameka Lewis EPA Region 6 Todd Thompson TCEQ Tracie Donaldson EPA Region 6 Wi llie Kelley EPA Region 6
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0550. IN THE INTEREST OF J. R. C., A CHILD (FATHER).

The above-styled appeal was docketed on November 2, 2021, and appellant’s

brief was due on November 22, 2021. See Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a). No brief was

filed by that date. On November 29, 2021, appellant filed a “Motion Requesting Out

of Time Extension in Time to File Applicant’s Brief for Good Cause Shown.”

Appellant’s motion for an out of time extension is DENIED. And because appellant

did not file a timely brief and did not request an extension of time before the brief was

due, see Court of Appeals Rule 16 (b), this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 01, 2021

12/01/2021
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33020]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,513; TA-W-33,513Y; TA-W-33,513Z; TA-W-33,513AA]


Levi Strauss and Company, Goodyear Cutting Facility and El Paso 
Field Headquarters 1440 Goodyear El Paso, Texas, Fayetteville, 
Arkansas; Harrison, Arkansas; Dallas CF Regional Office Dallas, Texas; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 7, 1997, applicable to 
workers of Levi Strauss and Company, located in El Paso, Texas. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 1997 (62 
FR 48888). The certification was subsequently amended to include the 
subject firm workers at El Paso Field Headquarters in El Paso, Texas. 
The amendment was issued on September 14, 1997, and published in the 
Federal Register on September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51155).
    At the request of the State agency and the company, the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New 
information received by the company shows that worker separations will 
occur at the Levi Strauss and Company production facilitates located in 
Fayetteville and Harrison, Arkansas. The company also reports layoffs 
at the Dallas CF Regional Office in Dallas, Texas. The workers at these 
three locations are engaged in employment related to the production of 
men's, women's and youth's denim jeans and jackets. Based on this new 
information, the Department is amending the certification to cover the 
subject firm' workers in Fayetteville and Harrison, Arkansas, and 
Dallas, Texas.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Levi Strauss and Company who were adversely affected by 
increased imports of men's, women's and youth's denim jeans and 
jackets.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33,513 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Levi Strauss and Company, Goodyear Cutting 
Facility and El Paso Field Headquarters, El Paso, Texas (TA-W-
33,513), Fayetteville, Arkansas (TA-W-33,513Y), Harrison, Arkansas 
(TA-W-33,513Z), and Dallas, Texas (TA-W-33,513AA) who were engaged 
in employment related to the production of men's, women's and 
youth's denim jeans and jackets who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after May 13, 1996 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.

    Signed at Washington D.C. this 9th day of December 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-33020 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXHIBIT 12


                UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.

         Computation of Earnings to Fixed Charges Ratio
                   (In thousands of dollars)

                                       Three
                   Year      Year      Months     Year      Year       Year
                   Ended     Ended     Ended      Ended     Ended      Ended
                   Dec.26,   Dec.27,   Dec.28,    Sep.28,   Oct.1,     Oct.2,
                    1998      1997      1996       1996      1995       1994

Earnings (loss) before
 fixed charges:

 Income (loss) from
  continuing
  operations
  before income
  taxes (1)       $227,086  $ 92,886  $(1,325)  $(30,761) $ 34,369  $(204,925)

 Interest and
  debt expense      86,512    96,011   24,814    106,456   114,034    128,567

 Undistibuted
  (earnings) loss
  of less than
  50% owned
  affiliates          (682)    2,135      149        362       149        (32)

 Interest portion
  of rent expense    3,055     3,138      663      2,705     2,193      2,051

Earnings (loss
 before fixed
 charges:         $315,971  $194,170  $24,301   $ 78,762  $150,745  $ (74,339)

Fixed charges:
 Interest and
  debt expense      86,512    96,011   24,814    106,456   114,034    128,567

 Interest portion of
  rent expense       3,055     3,138      663      2,705     2,193      2,051

 Capitalized
  interest             947       364       68      1,677     2,518       378

Fixed charges:    $ 90,514  $ 99,513  $25,545   $110,838  $118,745  $ 130,996

Deficiency in earnings
 available to cover
 fixed charges                          1,244     32,076              205,335  


Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges        3.49      1.95                          1.27


(1) Includes $33.6 million of facility closure costs in 1998, $10.0 million of 
severance and other costs and a $13.5 million special environmental provision
in 1997, $52.6 million of merger and related costs and a $30 million special
environmental provision in the year ended September 28, 1996, and a $191
million write-off of intangible assets in the year ended October 2, 1994.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

s0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137670 

ALICE BUCKLEY and DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, 

Appellees, 

v SC: 137670 

 COA: 277028 

Wayne CC: 06-630481-AE 

PROFESSIONAL PLAZA CLINIC 

CORPORATION, 

Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7537

ROBERT CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH SUTTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-486-3)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint.* We have reviewed

the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Chambers v. Sutton, No. CA-95-486-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 8,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00586

- CR

Cynthia Gail Priddy

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 78th District Court

o f Wichita C ounty (52,948

- B )

October 16 , 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. I t is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier