alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12

                     GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                      Nine months ended September 28, 2002

                                   (Unaudited)



(In millions)

Earnings (loss):
   Loss before income taxes                                         $(439)
   Fixed charges:
     Minority interest in net earnings of
       consolidated subsidiaries (1)                                   66
     Interest expense (2)                                              98
                                                                    -----
                                                                    $(275)
                                                                    =====
Fixed charges:
   Minority interest in net earnings of
     consolidated subsidiaries (3)                                   $114
   Interest expense (2)                                                98
                                                                     ----
                                                                     $212
                                                                     ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                               See (4) below
                                                                 =============


(1)  Minority  interest  in net earnings of  consolidated  subsidiaries includes
     earnings from purchased affiliates and dividends on subsidiary's  preferred
     stock.

(2)  Interest  expense   includes  an   amount  for  one-third  of  the   rental
     expense,  which the Company  believes is a reasonable  approximation of the
     interest factor for such rentals.

(3)  The  fixed  charges  amount  for  minority  interest  in  net  earnings  of
     consolidated  subsidiaries  represents  the pre-tax  earnings  amount which
     would be required to cover such fixed charges as calculated below:

                      Earnings From Purchased Affiliates or
                Subsidiary's Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement
                -------------------------------------------------
                             100% - Income Tax Rate

     The  income  tax rate is based on the  relationship  of the  provision  for
     income taxes to earnings before income taxes for the respective period.

(4)  Earnings for the nine-month period ended September 28, 2002 were inadequate
     to cover fixed charges by $487 million.




                                       19
#### Tabitha Bassi, Respondent, v Ellen Cucinello, as Executor of Eugene J. Cucinello, Deceased, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

*[655*NYS2d 388]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the defendant Sundance Swimming Pools, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an *239order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated February 15, 1996, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2) the defendant Ellen Cucinello separately appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted as against her.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion of Sundance Swimming Pools, Inc., and the cross motion bf Ellen Cucinello for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them are granted, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against them, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff, an experienced swimmer and diver, was severely injured when she struck her neck on the bottom of a pool in which she had been swimming. She commenced this action against, *inter alia,*the appellants Ellen Cucinello, the owner of the pool, and Sundance Swimming Pools, Inc. (hereinafter Sundance), a company which performed renovations on the pool, alleging, *inter alia,*that the lack of proper warnings and markings concerning the depth of the pool constituted a proximate cause of her injuries. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was familiar with the pool at issue, having used it on several prior occasions. After issue was joined, Sundance moved and Cucinello cross-moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied both the motion and cross motion. We now reverse.

Regardless of whether the testimony of the defendant Scott Petrallo or the testimony of the plaintiff as to the manner in which the injury occurred is credited, there is no causal connection between the alleged acts and/or omissions by the appellants and the plaintiff’s injuries *(see, Kriz v Schum,*75 NY2d 25; *Howard v Poseidon Pools,*72 NY2d 972; *Boltax v Joy Day Camp,*67 NY2d 617; *Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308; *Aronson v Horace Mann-Barnard School,*224 AD2d 249). Accordingly, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted as against the appellants. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
# C_2022284EN.01003001.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Domator24.com Paweł Nowak v EUIPO — Siwek and Didyk (Armchair)

(Case T-256/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing an armchair - Earlier community design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 25(1)(b) and Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2022/C 284/37)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Domator24.com Paweł Nowak (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawliczek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Piotr Siwek (Gdańsk, Poland), Sebastian Didyk (Gdańsk) (represented by: W. Gierszewski, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1275/2020-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Siwek and Mr Didyk and, on the other, Domator24.com Paweł Nowak.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Domator24.com Paweł Nowak to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Domator24.com Paweł Nowak to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT

I, Michael K. Jackson, Interim Chief Financial Officer of
Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (12 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 30, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ MICHAEL K. JACKSON                            
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Michael K. Jackson Interim
Chief Financial Officer
#### G. M. C. A. CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. NONI, INC., a Florida corporation, John W. Geer and Marcelline Geer, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-362.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 18, 1969.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen and Robert C. Sommer-ville; Kimbrell & Bailey Miami, for appel-lees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

Involved in this appeal is a priority of liens. We hold that a landlord’s lien [pursuant to provision of § 83.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.] attaches either at the time of the commencement of a tenancy or when a chattel is brought on the premises. Lovett v. Lee, 141 Fla. 395, 193 So. 538; McKesson & Robbins, Inc. v. Taft Street Shopping Center, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 210; 20 Fla.Jur., Landlord & Tenant, § 93. It has been held that a liquor license is subject to a chattel or a landlord’s lien. Yarbrough v. Villeneuve, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 747; Hubbard v. Jebb, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 307.

The original tenancy in this case commenced in 1962. A liquor license was brought on the premises at, or shortly after, the commencement of the original term of the lease. The original term was for five years, with a five year option. The original parties recognized that the option to extend for an additional five years had been effected and, pursuant to the provisions of the lease, the landlord agreed to assignment of the lessee’s interest to a third party in November of 1967, with the tenancy to commence January 2, 1968. At this time, the original tenants were not released from liability on the lease, although they took from their assignee a note secured by a purchase money mortgage which, among other things, encumbered the liquor license.

The facts were undisputed; the trial judge held the landlord’s lien inferior to the lien created by the chattel mortgage, evidently because of the execution of the assignment and knowledge of the chattel *892mortgage. We reverse. Under the statute and authorities, the landlord’s lien was superior to the subsequently created chattel lien and, without specific acts of the landlord agreeing to subordinate his lien to that of the chattel mortgage, he continued to possess a priority of lien over that of the chattel mortgagee. Little & Son v. Bryan, 100 Fla. 1577, 131 So. 652; National Title Insurance Company v. Mercury Builders, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 132; 22 Fla. Jur., Mortgages, § 131; 36 Am.Jur., Mortgages, § 222.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final decree of foreclosure here under review is modified to the extent of indicating that the landlord has a priority for rent superior to that possessed by the mortgagees, Geer.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**376 CAF 10-00488**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF LEOPOLIAN P., III, AND STEPHEN M., JR.

----------------------------------------------- JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; TIFFANY B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND LEOPOLIAN P., II, RESPONDENT.

THOMAS N. MARTIN, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. CARACCIOLI & NELSON, PLLC, WATERTOWN (ANNALISE M. DYKAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. KIMBERLY A. WOOD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, WATERTOWN, FOR LEOPOLIAN P., III AND STEPHEN M., JR.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Richard V. Hunt, J.), entered January 29, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, terminated the parental rights of respondent mother. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### D. R. HALL, Jr., et ux., Appellants, v. Ellsworth G. SIMMONS, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-228.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

Aug. 23, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1972.

Gibbons, Tucker, McEwen, Smith, Cofer & Taub, Tampa, for appellants.

C. R. Talley, of Himes & Talley, A. Broaddus Livingston, Tampa, Adrian S. Bacon, St. Petersburg, and William R. Hapner, Jr., of Rood & Hapner, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a zoning controversy wherein the Board of County Commissioners of Hills-borough County rezoned property having A-R to C-U zone. Appellants sought to overturn this zoning in the Circuit Court and here seek to reverse the judge’s decision affirming the action of the Board of County Commissioners. Appellants rely on Renard v. Dade County, Fla.1972, 261 So.2d 832, and urge this court to reverse. We have examined the case and it is our opinion that *Renard*is not controlling. The rezoning was fairly debatable and the judgment should be affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
#### VICTORIA HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Ellen Morgan HOLL et al., Appellees.

No. 67-751.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 19, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023216EN.01004301.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Activa — Grillküche v EUIPO — Targa (Apparatus for grilling)

(Case T-757/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing apparatus for grilling - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2023/C 216/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Activa — Grillküche GmbH (Selb, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and M. Würth, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Targa GmbH (Soest, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 October 2021 (Case R 1651/2020-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Activa — Grillküche GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Activa — Grillküche GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
^ 

^ 

^ 

k t ^ 

H - » 

O 

p 

6 o_ 

> — * 

"-1 dd 

? 

^ 

^ 

C 

3 

^ 

i 0 0 

p 

o o 3 

CL " 

O 

o 3 

1 - ' 

a 

S on D 

o 

o 

00 O N 

I I U ) t o 0 0 4 ^ 

> cr 

m a CD O) 0 0 

D 

o 

m to II 

=. I/) 

CD 

n 

o 

3 

< 

§ 00 

s 

^ s D 8 

o 

c Q . 

C (U 

3 a. fD 

3 

O 

O 

c 

(T) 

a Q cu 7 r n> cu T3 o' OJ o' 

3 

O - h 

</l 

-5" 

ft) Si 

S 

> o

-

n> 3. 

ft) fD 

3 

O <u 

3 

o 

3 r> 01 

TO •< •< 

Si. 

i i 

(->• 

^ 8 

c 

3 Q . 

cr 01 

o 

i T3 (D 

0) 

3 Q. 

(/I 3 - O) <u 

• a 

•o_ Q . fD 

• D _ CU 

o n_ 

ft-

Oi <u in 

O 

C - 1 

o O) fD fD 

c fD tD Q. 

C c

-

v> a. 

n (D 3! 

TO' 3 - r + 1/1 

o c_ Q. D- ^^ 3 ' 

TO 

O 

C t o D . CU •< 01 

3 Q . 

c 

3 Q . CU •< 

-5 i; tn n> O- 3 - i. E 

r+' in ' f ? C2. I ?s 2 ; in o V), 3- 5- < TO CU 3 

</) (D § ? 

-<• =r ^i = B' 

TO 3 " 

C - 1 

-^' T5 

O 

C 

3 Q . fD in fD CU 

3 Q . 

o 

fD_ r + CU 

u i ' 3 - 3 ' 

l-f r 3 - fD 

TO 

O Q . fD 

n lU <n fD fD fD S" 

3 

TO 3 -

£2. 

c fD 3 - fD 

m 

(/> 

c o

-

v> QI 

• < 

• c _ cu 

3 

1/1 

O 

• > 03 3 5; Q . — c ^• 5' 3 

if fD 3 "> r+ r + 3 - O 

</> r* O 3 - - h fD DT 5' 5 °' Q- 3 - n >> g- ^ Si fD • S 

n fD < • fD Q . 

O 

O 

3 r> fD 

O 

f D . 

I-+ !U 

> 

3 fD in Q. (D 

n 

i n ' 5' 

o 

c r* 

o 

c 

i 

fD X

-

(D 

3 Q . TO 

i 

O 

3 fD 

O 

> cr (D s. (D fD 

3 

a fD CU 0 } 

OTHWn c o <D 3 s" si (D CO 

o 

Cfl 58 (D 

i o' (D 

0 5 t& d o 2 o if 

118 

tS3® O < il > o ^ OJ a. 

o 

o 

3 

> D 

CT CD i. CD <D 

3 CO 

D 33 (D 

(Q 

0 

3 

^ 

> - 1 

•D 

0 a. 

> OJ 

3 CO ? r 

•<. 

< § vC 

D CD 

3 

3 

co' 

0 

^ H 

— 

s 

D 

3 

3 

O i3 

F5Q 0 

U J 

71 

1 

$0 

o
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                          92,514
<SECURITIES>                                    11,088
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,205,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,463,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,842,699
<PP&E>                                      13,819,794
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,998,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,765,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,217,261
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,038
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,838,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,765,298
<SALES>                                     34,550,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,550,589
<CGS>                                       31,155,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,155,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (23,004)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               130,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             362,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,157,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (164,894)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (992,136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (992,136)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
S. 1093 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 130 Caldwell 

Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, 

Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ALVIN CHESTER COCKRELL, JR. POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin 

Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit 31.1 — CERTIFICATION**I, Richard M. Feldt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Evergreen Solar, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:August 2, 2007       /s/ Richard M. Feldt         Richard M. Feldt    Chief Executive Officer