alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                  BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORPORATION
                     RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           For the Year Ended December 31
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                      1997       1996         1995        1994
                                    --------  -----------  -----------  --------
<S>                                 <C>       <C>          <C>          <C>
                                              (dollars in thousands)
Interest costs and amortization
 of debt costs                      $ 20,308     $  7,868      $   725   $     -
Interest factor related to
 noncapitalized leases (1)             4,456        4,839        2,203     1,632
                                    --------  -----------  -----------  --------

 Total fixed charges                $ 24,764     $ 12,707      $ 2,928   $ 1,632
                                    ========  ===========  ===========  ========


Income before income taxes          $ 99,784     $ 93,812      $71,370   $43,194
Total fixed charges                   24,764       12,707        2,928     1,632
                                    --------  -----------  -----------  --------
Total earnings before
 fixed charges                      $124,548     $106,519      $74,298   $44,826
                                    ========  ===========  ===========  ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       5.0          8.4         25.4      27.5
</TABLE>


(1)  Interest expense for operating leases with terms of one year or
     longer is based on an imputed interest rate for each lease.
#### Willie Lee MOORE and Mary Moore, his wife, Appellants, v. R. Huston BABCOCK and Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 72-1062.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 1974.

I. W. Williams of Minnis, Williams & Milton, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Richard E. Wolverton of Ramseur, Bradham, Lyle, Skipper & Cramer, St. Pe-tersburg, for appellees.

HOBSON, Judge.

This cause is a companion with Moore v. School Board of Pinellas County et al., 291 So.2d 244.

Appellants appeal a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellees. We have examined the record on appeal and find that the appellees have satisfied the requirements of Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40, as to their entitlement to a summary judgment in this malpractice action. We are mindful of the factors dictating caution in the use of summary judgments, particularly prevailing in this type of negligence action; however, from this record we find that all requirements under Holl, supra, have been met.

Therefore, the summary judgment is

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 222

Providing for the public release of documentation and testimony before the

House Post Office Task Force.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 21, 1993

Mr. MICHEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for the public release of documentation and

testimony before the House Post Office Task Force.

Whereas on July 22, 1992, the House of Representatives

voted to transmit to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the committee report and all records obtained by the Task Force to Investigate the Operation

and Management of the House Post Office;

Whereas the report of the Committee on House Administration selectively included portions of the transcript of the

proceedings of the Task Force in the appendix of their

Report;

Whereas efforts in the One hundred second Congress to release the full transcript of the Task Force were defeated

in the House on July 22, 1992, and July 23, 1992;
2

HRES 222 IH

Whereas the former Postmaster of the House of Representatives, Robert V. Rota, from 1978 continuing until April

1992 conspired, confederated, and agreed with other persons, including Members of Congress, to commit offenses

against the United States;

Whereas the former Postmaster has pled guilty to making

false statements to the Task Force and discussed with

his supervisor of accounts the need to withhold information during interviews with United States Postal Inspectors and the congressional committee investigating the

House Post Office;

Whereas the former Postmaster engaged in a cover up of the

exchange of vouchers and postage stamps for cash beginning in May 1980 and continued throughout the House

investigation of the post office; and

Whereas the integrity of the House of Representatives has

been impugned by the actions of Mr. Rota and others:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Committee on House Administra2 tion is directed to immediately make public complete tran3 scripts of all proceedings of the Task Force, including

4 depositions and statements of witnesses and any tapes of

5 such proceedings.

Æ
#### Patricia Ash Lacour, wife of Gerald LACOUR v. Gerald LACOUR.

No. 9304.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 1978.

*1084Harry A. Burglass, Metairie, for appellee.

Floyd J. Reed, Metairie, for appellant.

Before LEMMON, BOUTALL and WICKER, JJ.

JUDGMENT ON MOTION TO DECLARE SUSPENSIVE APPEAL NULL AND VOID.

Petitioner, Patricia Ash Lacour, seeks to prohibit her husband from taking a suspen-sive appeal from a judgment accumulating back alimony and making the amount exec-utory. She asserts that our decision in the case of *Elchinger*v. *Elchinger,*181 So.2d 297 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1965), Writ Refused, 248 La. 1098, 184 So.2d 23, is contrary to the language and purpose of Code of Civil Procedure Articles 3943 and 3945.

In the case of *Malone v. Malone,*282 So.2d 119 (La.1973) the Supreme Court interpreted the purpose of C.C.P. Article 3943 as follows:

> “[2] The main purpose of Article 3943, which has no counterpart in the Code of Practice, is to codify the jurisprudential rule denying a suspensive appeal in custody cases and to provide a wife necessary support pending appeal, by legislatively overruling jurisprudence which held that suspensive appeals could be taken from judgments awarding alimony. C.C.P. 3943, Official Revision Comments. How.ever, the' wording of the article is unfortunate: ‘judgment awarding,’ which appears in the first sentence of the article, appears to demand a restricted application of Article 3943, but ‘judgment relates to,’ which appears in the second sentence of the article, seems to indicate a broader application of the article.

> 

> “[3] Therefore, we hold that appeals from judgments awarding, denying, modifying or terminating alimony or custody are governed by the provisions of C.C.P. 3943.”

Although the decision in that case has broadened the application of Article 3943 to several instances not previously believed applicable, it makes no mention of including the Article 3945 proceeding for determination of alimony in arrears and making that amount executory. In view of the court’s ability to punish a non-paying husband for contempt of court for failure to pay timely, we cannot see the necessity for extending the Article 3943 rule to include Article 3945. Our courts have been consistent in so ruling, and we reaffirm our decision in *Elchinger,*supra. See *Mertens v. Mertens,*308 So.2d 506 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1975), Writ Refused, La., 313 So.2d 240; *Picinich v. Picinich,*271 So.2d 670 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972); *Granger*v. *Granger,*193 So.2d 898 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1967).

The motion to dismiss the suspensive appeal is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DOCUCON,
INCORPORATED'S CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND ITS
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         271,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               557,089
<PP&E>                                         130,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 633,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          410,697
<BONDS>                                          8,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                        36,588
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   633,339
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  843,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (876,375)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (890,813)
<DISCONTINUED>                               3,060,268
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,169,455
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 258 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 258

  Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 493) to give the 
    President legislative, line-item veto rescission authority over 
    appropriations bills and targeted tax benefits in revenue bills.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1993

 Mr. Solomon submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 493) to give the 
    President legislative, line-item veto rescission authority over 
    appropriations bills and targeted tax benefits in revenue bills.

    Resolved, That immediately after the adoption of this resolution 
the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 493) to 
give the President legislative, line-item veto rescission authority 
over appropriations bills and targeted tax benefits in revenue bills, 
and the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with, and all 
points of order against the bill and against its consideration are 
hereby waived. After general debate which shall be confined to the bill 
and which shall not exceed four hours to be equally divided and 
controlled by Representative Michel of Illinois, or a designee, and a 
Member opposed thereto, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Global DECS Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Chaffee, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to
the best of my knowledge:

     a)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/  Michael Chaffee
-----------------------------
     Michael Chaffee
     President

      August 26, 2003
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q/A of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (“the Company”) for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald N. Smith, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss. 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; and                                |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| 2)     |   | The information contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial  condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|   |   | By:    | /s/ Donald N. Smith     |   |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Name:  | Donald N. Smith         |
|   |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | Date:  | November 4, 2002        |
|        |        |        |                         |        |  |

 

 

 

----
House Calendar No. 26

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 147

[Report No. 103–50]

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R.

public debt limit.1430) to provide for a temporary increase in the

MARCH 31, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 26

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 147

[Report No. 103–50]

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1430) to provide for a

temporary increase in the public debt limit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

Mr. MOAKLEY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1430) to

provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

3 1430) to provide for a temporary increase in the public

4 debt limit. All points of order against the bill and against

5 its consideration are waived. Debate on the bill shall not

6 exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

7 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

8 on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be con-
2

RES 147 RH

1 sidered as ordered on the bill to final passage without in2 tervening motion except one motion to recommit.

3 SEC. 2. Upon its passage by the House, H.R. 1430

4 shall be considered to constitute reconciliation legislation

5 pursuant to section 7(a) of the conference report to ac6 company the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) set7 ting forth the congressional budget for the United States

8 Government for the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,

9 and 1998.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gilbert Ray SELF.

No. 61902.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 2, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of review and/or remedial writs. Parish of Sabine.

Denied.

SANDERS, C. J. would grant the writ.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

        LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND THEIR COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION/OPERATION

..   iProcure, Inc.                                      United States of America
..   Datastream Systems International, Inc.              United States of America
..   Datastream FSC, Inc.                                U.S. Virgin Islands
..   SQL Group, B.V.                                     The Netherlands
..   Datastream Systems, BV                              The Netherlands
..   Datastream Systems (UK), Ltd.                       The United Kingdom
..   Datastream, SA                                      France
..   SQL System Participates, BV                         The Netherlands
..   SQL Systems Deutschland, GmbH                       Germany
..   Datastream Systems, GmbH                            Germany
..   Datastream Insta Holding GmbH                       Germany
..   Datastream Systems GmbH & Co. KG                    Germany
..   Asystum Participations, BV                          The Netherlands
..   Datastream Systems Ireland Ltd.                     Ireland
..   Sikasso Pte Ltd.                                    Singapore
..   Datastream Systems Pte Ltd.                         Singapore
..   Datastream Systems Co., Ltd.                        China
..   Datastream Systems Pte Ltd.                         Japan
..   Datastream Systems Pty Ltd.                         Australia
..   Computec Sistemas S.A.                              Argentina
..   Datastream Systems de Mexico S.A. de C.V.           Mexico
..   Datastream Servicios Mexicanos, S. de R.L. de C.V.  Mexico
..   Datastream Systems do Brasil Ltda.                  Brazil
..   Datastream Systems de Chile SRL                     Chile
#### George GARDNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-520.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A. Cowart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jo Ann LANG, Appellant, v. Ralph E. LANG, Jr., Appellee.

No. 73-903.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eoaorable Tom L. Bsrtley 

criminal Distrlot Attorney 

Hlnburg, Texas 

Dear S&m oplnioicRo. o-3699 

Ret "Wha6her mvna.oi oil and gas 

leasa mayoleat leasehold 

iotermt 0% tax Son by paying 

a .proportionate part 0% tuea 

arre88ed agalimti the land M a 

pl; prior fro umitiyl 0% 

. 

Jh your lbttea? CeJune 13, 194.&, you.mamit to us 

tihe iollowl.nei faotst 

*Wo have the fol&mlng s.lSuation ubtlng 

,. in several delinqueht ku: suits whiah.have been 

filed on behalf of the State 0% Texas, oounty of 

PUbalgog the-taxes are ~delfnqtmnt fran 1930 to 

194o,dlloluulre. Then 8Un Ofi Caqmny aoquired 

an 011 and ga lease~on the.property involred in 

1935; said. lease being for the regular seveneighths tnterest, the,lessor reservIng.a oneeighth fntereet. Each year sinoe the sun Oil 

Compmny aoquired this lease, It has rendered its 

leasehold estate and has paid taxes on it. Said 

oil oompany now m&ktaina that ft is entitled to 

pay a part of the taxes fop'the years from 1930 

to 1935; basing its payment on the value of its 

leasehold Interest. It oontendm that if it pays 

said proportionate part of the taxes, the State 

and County~oan not foreolose its lien as to the 

sun Oil Compfllly." 

You request our opinion as to whether or not the 

~lessee, under the clrcumetanoes set out above, oan pay a par’b 
Honorable Tom L. Hartley, page 2 

or the tax88 ior years prier to the aoquisition or ita lease 

in pro rtloo to the va$uo of Itar loaeehold estate and thus 

be r8.l ,r mad tram a foroolosmo Sf the ad Yalorera tax lion 

agniM8 it. 

$8 b63@g.speoially noted that the tun in qusstiott 

were. a8ge8md a&.mO the Whole interoat'in the land prior 

to the ueotat~on 09 the oU and grs lease, it ilr our oplnl~m 

8ha8 raids 1~s~ &ay not dimhargo the lion agalnrt the 

loatmhold'+ato by paying only a part of the tqxoe amossod 

again98 tha land prior to tab oxe8utlon of the 108~0 aa4 the 

l o ver ~o e o %, the lo a ueh o ld esta te. A~~ordhgly we umwu 

yo* quwtion * the nega8i~o. we onolorr ooplw of our 

opipictno 19ar; o-922 and-O-1236 frawwhlohourraaeme ror 

the am.ww'gl*~ you fully appear. Wo al80 enoloao aopy or 

opinion Ro. o-2366 mh%oh elilsxsrs mother quostlon suggsetod 

ttl your 1Lettor:
#### LONG POINT ROAD.

In proceedings respecting roads a common interest as a citizen will not give a- right of review ; there must Lea special interest, as the owner or holder of lands affected hy the road.

The return will not be conclusive as to the land owners.

In the matter of a return of a public road from Long Point, in Kent county, to Duck creek.

*153The order was made in this case on the petition of John It. Brick and others, to lay out a road from Long Point, across lands of Elizabeth Morris and Rebecca Corse, *or*across lands of Isaac Short, to Duck creek, as the commissioners'might judge best. The commissioners returned a road across land of Elizabeth Morris and Rebecca Corse, to which Isaac Short filed the following exceptions, viz:

1. That the road was laid across land to which he claimed title.

2. That it was laid across land which was in dispute between him and Eliza Morris and R. Corse.

3. That one of the commissioners was not a freeholder.

*Mr. Bates,*

for the exceptant, moved to quash the return on the latter ground; and asked a review on the other grounds.

*Comegys*and *Smithers,*contra,

insisted that Mr. Short could not ask a review, as he did not appear by the return to have any interest in the matter; that the return did not touch any property of his; if it did, it gave no right to a road over it, and he had his remedy-by action of trespass; that the title could not be tried in this proceeding; and that as to the last ground, it was untrue in fact, and insufficient in law, as the amended constitution had repealed the freehold qualification of road commissioners.

*Mr. Bates*

replied that the exceptant had a right to the review as a party “ interested in or affected by” the road; either on the ground of his alledged title to the land, or from the fact that the new road would materially affect his business as a tavern keeper and wharf owner, by diverting travel to another point on Duck creek.

*The*Court.

The construction usually given to the act of assembly, in reference to the interests of a person in a new road, has been, that it must be confined to an interest in the land through which the road runs or which it touches. A remote interest, such as that of the occupant or owner of a tavern, that might be affected by the new road, is not such an interest as is contemplated. It may be otherwise in the case of vacating or changing an old road. But in case of a new road, in regard to the persons returned as having an interest, it might operate unjustly to confine the "parties to the finding of the return; and if a party not named in the return will make an affidavit and support it by competent evidence, that he is the owner or possessor of any part of the land through or along which the road runs, he will be entitled to a review.