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

                               Verizon South Inc.

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                                       Three Months Ended
(Dollars in Millions)                                    March 31, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Income before provision for income taxes                          $ 167.8
Interest expense                                                     19.5
Portion of rent expense representing interest                         4.2
Amortization of capitalized interest                                   .1
                                                     ------------------------

Earnings, as adjusted                                              $191.6
                                                     ========================

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                                                   $ 19.5
Portion of rent expense representing interest                         4.2
Capitalized interest                                                   .2
                                                     ------------------------

Fixed Charges                                                      $ 23.9
                                                     ========================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                   8.02
                                                     ========================
# C_2020222EN.01002901.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/29

---

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-261/20)

(2020/C 222/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 485

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1547/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the International trademark registration No 1 151 485, also for classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the International trademark registration No 1 151 485, also for classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) in connection with Article 198 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) in connection with Article 198 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Inez GREEN, Appellant, v. Willie C. HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 71-47.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SOUTH TEXAS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie A. JOHNSON et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11836.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 24, 1972.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied May 23, 1972.

Gallagher & Gallagher, by Andrew B. Gallagher, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

Wilkinson, Woods, Carmody & Peatross, by W. Scott Wilkinson, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants.

Before BOLIN, PRICE and HEARD, JJ-

BOLIN, Judge.

This case was consolidated with Moore et al. v. Johnson et al., 262 So.2d 105.

Plaintiff was the collision insurer of a truck owned by Elven V. Moore which was involved in an accident with an automobile driven by Jimmie A. Johnson.

Plaintiff paid $595.75 to Moore under his insurance policy and brings this subro-gation claim against defendants.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants as prayed for, defendants appeal.

For the reasons stated in the consolidated case above referred to, the judgment is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Hall, J., recused on rehearing.
# Official Journal C 257I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 257I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 641 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 257I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 641 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations |
| 2021/C 257 I/01 | Decision of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations of 18 May 2021 adopting rules concerning the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union Institutions, Bodies, Offices and Agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, in relation to the restriction of certain rights of data subjects in accordance with Article 25 of that Regulation | 1 |
| | European Food Safety Authority |
| 2021/C 257 I/02 | Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission | 16 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations

2021/C 257 I/01

Decision of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations of 18 May 2021 adopting rules concerning the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union Institutions, Bodies, Offices and Agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, in relation to the restriction of certain rights of data subjects in accordance with Article 25 of that Regulation

1

European Food Safety Authority

2021/C 257 I/02

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission

16

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2020433EN.01005501.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/55

---

Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol

(Case T-586/20)

(2020/C 433/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MN (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period;

| — | order Europol to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging multiple manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging multiple manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision.

---
**Exhibit 32-2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Date:    August 10, 2006     |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   |
|                              |   |
| /s/ Stephen R. Wherry             |   |
|                                   |   |
| Stephen R. Wherry                 |   |
| Senior Vice President, Treasurer, |   |
| Assistant   Secretary and         |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer         |   |

----
S&S Aviation

1291 Runway Rd

Winnsboro, SC 29180

(803) 635-3086

October 19, 2011

Docket Management Facility

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

S&S Aviation, Inc. hereby petitions for exemption from Part 120 of Titile 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14CFR) to all S&S Aviation, Inc. and Airborne Aviation, Inc. to cover it’s safety sensitive 

employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. Both companies are owned by myself and co-exist 

at the same location (Fairfield County Airport, Winnsboro SC).

Airborne Aviation, Inc. operates under FAR 145 (Cert. # V3QR738Y). The LOA for S&S 

Aviation, Inc. is on request with the SC FSDO in West Columbia, SC.

Due to the small number of employees (5) and the fact that all but two serve in both capacities, 

there would be no reduction in safety involved.

The public would be benefited by the reduction of redundant administrative burden as a whole.

Similar exemptions have been issued for small companies such as ours, where many types of 

functions are combined due to a small market.

Thank you,

Brian Steed

President, S&S Aviation, Inc.

President, Airborne Aviation, Inc.
No. 10631.

#### Austin *v.*Russell et al.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

*Messrs. McMahon & McMahon,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. McKemy & Bellville*and *Messrs. Runyan & Stanley,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 7 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 7

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 1993.
    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of meeting of the House 
shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays; 2 o'clock post meridiem on Wednesdays; 11 
o'clock ante meridiem on all other days of the week up to and including May 14, 
1993; and that from May 15, 1993, until the end of the first session, the hour 
of daily meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays and 10 
o'clock ante meridiem on all other days of the week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[No. 881-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

November 22, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Siegfried D. Martinez, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 54723, Robert M. Elston, J., entered November 25, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
S e p t e m b e r 8 t h

, 2 0 1 5

U

. S

. D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

D o c k e t M a n a g e m e n t S y s t e m

1 2 0 0 N e w J e r s e y A v e

. ,

W a s h i n g t o n

, D C 2 0 5 9 0

R E : R e q u e s t t o A m e n d S e c t i o n 3 3 3 E x e m p t i o n N o

. 1 2 2 5 8

­ R e g u l a t o r y D o c k e t N o

.

F A A

– 2 0 1 5

– 2 0 5 9 t o i n c l u d e d C l o s e d

­ S e t M o t i o n P i c t u r e F i l m i n g

D e a r S i r o r M a d a m :

P u r s u a n t t o t h e S e c t i o n 3 3 3 o f t h e F A A M o d e r n i z a t i o n a n d R e f

o r m A c t o f 2 0 1 2 ( t h e " R e f

o r m

A c t " )

, P a t r i c k H e a p h y ( t h e " a p p l i c a n t " )

, o p e r a t o r o f a n U n m a n n e d A i r c r a f t S y s t e m s ( " U A S " )

s e e k s t o A m e n d E x e m p t i o n N o

. 1 2 2 5 8 t o a d d i t i o n a l l y p e r m i t c l o s e d s e t m o t i o n p i c t u r e a n d

f i l m i n g

.

A p p l i c a n t :

P a t r i c k H e a p h y

L i b e r t y P o s t

, L L C

2 H a r t s h o r n L a n e

W e s t N y a c k

, N Y 1 0 9 9 4
#### LONG *v.*LONG

[No. 263,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided April 25, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Brunb, C. J., and HbndBRson, Hammond, Hornby and Marbury, JJ.

*Milton Gerson,*with whom was *Stanley Sollins*on the brief, for appellant.

Submitted on the brief by *Harold B. Naughton,*for appellee.

PBR Curiam.

This appeal is from a decree granting a divorce *a vinculo*to a husband on the ground of desertion since July, 1958. We think the testimony supports the chancellor’s finding that the wife left the home without cause, and secured employment in Baltimore where she has remained ever since. Although her testimony was to the contrary, the chancellor also found that she showed no desire for a reconciliation, until she appeared in court, and that the offer was not made in good faith. She was a trained nurse, and apparently more interested in a nursing career than in performing the duties of a housewife. We cannot find on the record that the chancellor was clearly in error.

*Decree affirmed, costs to be paid by the appellee.*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 455 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 455

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 16, 1994.
    Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 4554) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
for other purposes, points of order against the following provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived: beginning on page 
26, line 3, through line 8; beginning with ``$30,000,000'' on page 42, line 16, 
through ``housing;'' on line 17; beginning with ``section'' on page 43, line 1, 
through ``$15,750,000'' on line 2; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 46, line 
5, through ``1993'' on line 12; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 46, line 19, 
through ``1993'' on page 47, line 2; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 47, 
line 14, through ``$10,565,000'' on line 20; beginning with ``of which'' on page 
48, line 5, through ``1993'' on line 9; the phrase ``the foregoing $19,047,000'' 
on page 48, line 13; beginning with ``of which'' on page 50, line 10, through 
``1993'' on line 14; beginning on page 57, line 1, through ``(7 U.S.C. 612c)'' 
on line 12; beginning on page 58, line 23, through line 25; beginning on page 
59, line 16, through page 60, line 5; beginning on page 69, line 1, through line 
6; and beginning on page 70, line 20, through page 71, line 8.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
House Calendar No. 217

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 526

[Report No. 103–713]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against a further conpublic safety. and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance and members of the community to address crime tive efforts between law enforcement agencies police presence, to expand and improve coopera- Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe ference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3355)

AUGUST 21, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 217

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 526

[Report No. 103–713]

Waiving points of order against a further conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police presence, to

expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies

and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems,

and otherwise to enhance public safety.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 21, 1994

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against a further conference report

to accompany the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to

allow grants to increase police presence, to expand and

improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement

agencies and members of the community to address

crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance

public safety.
2

HR 526 RH

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider a further conference report

3 to accompany the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus

4 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow

5 grants to increase police presence, to expand and improve

6 cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and

7 members of the community to address crime and disorder

8 problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety. All

9 points of order against the conference report and against

10 its consideration are waived. The conference report shall

11 be considered as read. The conference report shall be de12 batable for eighty minutes, with twenty minutes controlled

13 by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, forty

14 minutes controlled by the ranking minority member of the

15 Committee on the Judiciary, and twenty minutes con16 trolled by Representative Castle of Delaware. The previous

17 question shall be considered as ordered on the conference

18 report to final adoption without intervening motion except

19 one motion to recommit, which may contain instructions

20 only if offered by Representative Michel of Illinois or his

21 designee.
# C_2023007EN.01001201.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary request from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Taxi Horn Tours BV v gemeente Weert, gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

(Case C-631/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Award of contracts - Article 2(1)(10) - Concept of an ‘economic operator’ - Inclusion of a general partnership without legal personality - Article 19(2) and Article 63 - Joint undertaking or reliance on the capacities of other entities of persons linked with that undertaking - Article 59(1) - Obligation to submit one or several European Single Procurement Documents (ESPD) - Purpose of the ESPD)

(2023/C 7/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Taxi Horn Tours BV

Defendants: gemeente Weert, gemeente Nederweert, Touringcars VOF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 59(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(10) and Article 63 of that directive, and with Annex 1 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/7 of 5 January 2016 establishing the standard form for the European Single Procurement Document,

must be interpreted as meaning that

a joint undertaking which, although not a legal person, has the form of a firm governed by the national legislation of a Member State, which appears on the commercial register of that Member State, which may have been set up on either a temporary or a permanent basis and all the joint partners of which are active on the same market as that joint undertaking and are jointly and severally liable for the proper performance of the obligations which it has entered into, must provide the contracting authority with only its own European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) when it intends to participate, on an individual basis, in a public procurement procedure or to submit a tender if it shows that it can perform the contract in question using only its own personnel and materials. If, on the other hand, for the performance of a public contract, that joint undertaking considers that it must seek the own resources of certain partners, it must be regarded as having recourse to the capacities of other entities, within the meaning of Article 63 of Directive 2014/24, and must then submit not only an ESPD for itself, but also an ESPD for each of the partners whose capacities it intends to use.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---