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

                         Six months ended June 29, 2002

                                   (Unaudited)



(In millions)

Earnings (loss):
   Loss before income taxes                                         $(226)
   Fixed charges:
     Minority interest in net earnings of
       consolidated subsidiaries (1)                                   44
     Interest expense (2)                                              67
                                                                    -----
                                                                    $(115)
                                                                    =====
Fixed charges:
   Minority interest in net earnings of
     consolidated subsidiaries (3)                                   $ 76
   Interest expense (2)                                                67
                                                                     ----
                                                                     $143
                                                                     ====

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  six-month  period ended June 29, 2002 were  inadequate to
     cover fixed charges by $258 million.




                                       13
#### Bailey M. WELDEN, Petitioner, v. Rosemary HAINES, Respondent.

No. 73-266.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### BACKUS *v.*KIRSCH.

This case is controlled by *Backus*v. *Kirsch, ante,*368.

Appeal from Wayne; Hunt (Ormond F.), J.

Submitted October 20, 1931.

(Calendar. No. 35,554.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

Bill by Ada T. Backus against Charles W. Kirsch to rescind the sale of certain corporate shares of stock. From an order denying plaintiff leave to amend bill, she appeals.

Affirmed.

*Lucking, Van Auken & Sprague (Roy H. Hagerman,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*J. Paid Wait*and *Harry C. Eoward,*for defendant.

*372North, J.

The facts and issues involved herein are in all essential particulars the same as in *Backus*v. Kirsch, *ante,*368. Decision there is controlling here. Affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 DAY INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.
2006 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 ARTICLE I
 a b c
 ARTICLE II
 Definitions




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE III
  ARTICLE IV
 Power to Grant
 Administration
 Delegation by the Board
 ARTICLE V
 Number
 Cancelled, Terminated or Forfeited Options




---



##### 



Adjustment in Capitalization
 ARTICLE VI
 Grant of Options
 Terms of Options
 Number of Shares Schedule 1 Schedule 1
 Exercise Price
 Exercise of Options




---



##### 



Forfeiture of Options
 Board Discretion
 Payment
 Notice of Approved Sale
 Stockholders Agreement




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
 Expiration Date
 Accelerated Expiration: Termination of Employment
 ARTICLE VIII
  ARTICLE IX
 Nontransferability of Awards




---



##### 



Beneficiary Designation
 No Guarantee of Employment or Participation
 Tax Withholding
 Indemnification
 Requirements of Law
 Freedom of Action ARTICLE VIII




---



##### 



Term of Plan ARTICLE VIII
 No Voting Rights
 Governing Law
# C_2022451EN.01000302.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — criminal procedure against HV

(Case C-266/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common transport policy - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 11(2) and (4) - Suspension of the right to drive a motor vehicle - Driving licence issued by the Member State of normal residence in exchange for a driving licence issued by another Member State - Refusal by the first Member State to enforce a decision suspending the right to drive adopted by the second Member State - Obligation for the second Member State not to recognise, in its territory, the validity of the driving licence that has been suspended)

(2022/C 451/04)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

HV

Intervening party: Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 11(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences,

must be interpreted as authorising the Member State of normal residence of the holder of a driving licence issued by that Member State not to recognise and enforce in its territory a decision suspending that holder’s right to drive a motor vehicle adopted by another Member State on account of a road traffic offence committed in that Member State’s territory, including where that driving licence was issued in exchange for a driving licence previously issued by the Member State in which the road traffic offence was committed.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
#### Lois BUSICK et al., Appellants, v. William SCHAMBERS, Appellee.

No. 72-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 9, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:AD 93-07-15
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14(a)/15D-14(a)
PROMULGATED UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Roger S. Huntington, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of SurgiCare, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; Date: July 23, 2004 /s/  Roger S. HuntingtonRoger S. Huntington, Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jared Shabazz, Appellant.

[723 NYS2d 296]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]). We agree with defendant that his purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. At the plea proceeding, the prosecutor and defense counsel both acknowledged that a waiver of the right to appeal was not a condition of the plea agreement. We conclude, however, that the bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Attempted Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 33255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15238]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Cumulative Report of Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget.

ACTION: Notice of monthly cumulative report pursuant to the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974, OMB is issuing a monthly cumulative report (for July, 
2018) from the Director detailing the status of rescission proposals 
that were previously transmitted to the Congress on May 8, 2018, and 
amended by the supplementary message transmitted on June 5, 2018.

DATES: Release Date: July 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The July, 2018 cumulative report is available on-line on the 
OMB website at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget-rescissions-deferrals/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Andreasen, 6001 New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed878c83899f888c9e8883ad82808fc388829dc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee848f808a9c8b8f9d8b80ae81838cc08b819ec0898198">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone number: (202) 395-3645. Because of 
delays in the receipt of regular mail related to security screening, 
respondents are encouraged to use electronic communications.

John Mulvaney,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2018-15238 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3110-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 12

                     GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        Three months ended March 31, 2001

                                   (Unaudited)



(In millions)

Earnings:
   Earnings before income taxes and cumulative effect                $105
      of change in accounting principle
   Fixed charges:
     Minority interest in net earnings of
       consolidated subsidiaries (1)                                   22
     Interest expense (2)                                              37
                                                                     ----
                                                                     $164
                                                                     ====
Fixed charges:
   Minority interest in net earnings of
     consolidated subsidiaries (3)                                   $ 32
   Interest expense (2)                                                37
                                                                     ----
                                                                     $ 69
                                                                     ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                   2.38
                                                                     ====


(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.


                                       10
*

 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

June 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 03-10832

_______________________

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-CORPUS CHRISTI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EVELYN UPCHURCH, Director Texas Service Center, and,

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, 

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(No. 3:03-CV-275-L)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi appeals from the district court’s

decision that Citizenship and Immigration Service properly denied Professor Jose Giraldo’s

petition for an O-1 visa. We affirm.

In 1999, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi (the “university”) filed an O-1 petition for

one of its professors, Jose Giraldo, based on Giraldo’s academic excellence. The predecessor to

Citizenship and Immigration Service (the “CIS”) approved the petition for September 1, 1999

until August 31, 2002. In 2002, the university filed a timely petition seeking extension of the
2

original O-1 petition. The CIS received additional information through a Request for Evidence. 

Based on the facts before the CIS, that agency denied the petition. The agency found that

Professor Giraldo failed to meet the requirements set forth in the applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. §

214.2(O)(3)(iii). The university sought relief in the district court, but the district court upheld the

agency’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The university

appealed to this court. 

We find that the district court gave appropriate deference to the agency’s decision. 

Professor Giraldo obviously has a good record, but he simply fails to meet the necessary

requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(O)(3)(iii). Professor Giraldo cannot prevent the CIS from

applying the guidelines in 2002 and thereafter because the CIS was lenient in granting Professor

Giraldo a visa in 1999. The petition was properly denied. 

For the above reasons, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2022244EN.01003301.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-110/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De. Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ilunga Kampete to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1245 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1245

   To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on nitro sulfon B.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on nitro sulfon B.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NITRO SULFON B.

    Heading 9902.29.07 of subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by this Act applies with 
respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (b) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with 
the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, any entry of an article described in 
subheading 9902.29.07 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the date which is 15 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry occurred on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
-  Freedom of Information Act      -  Submit & Check Status of FOIA Requests 
  -  FOIA Contacts & Requester Service Centers and Privacy Act Contacts 
  -  HHS FOIA Reports        -  Annual Reports 
    -  Quarterly Reports 
    -  Chief FOIA Officer Report 
    -  Open Pending FOIA Request Reports 
  -  FOIA Library / Electronic Reading Room        -  2016/2017 HHS Presidential Transition Documents 
  -  FOIA Exemptions & Exclusions 
  -  FOIA & Privacy Act Statutes & Resources        -  The Privacy Act 
    -  HHS System of Records Notices (SORNs) 
    -  HHS Computer Matching Agreements (CMAs) 
  -  FOIA FAQS 
  -  FOIA Appeals 
  -  FOIA Fees 
  -  COVID-19 Contracts 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# HHS Data Integrity Board (DIB) Annual Reports on Matching Programs and Activities

Annual reports on computer matching programs and activities are required by subsection (u)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a(u)(3)). They are submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) each June 1 and cover the preceding calendar year:

2022 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

2021 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

2020 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

2019 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

2018 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

2017 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

2016 Annual HHS Matching Activity Report

Content last reviewed July 17, 2023
#### Sylvester BOUNDS, Jr. v. GRENADA COUNTY YOUTH COURT.

No. 46086.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1971.

C. R. Easley, Jr., Jesse Yancy, Bruce, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Velia Ann Mayer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Youth Court, Grenada County; Kermit R. Cofer, Chancellor.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Maria PAPP et vir, Petitioners, v. Guillermina Rivero MORALES, Respondent.

No. 41957.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 254 So.2d 794.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Edward R. LeCOMPTE, Appellant, v. Honorable Dale CARSON, as Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, Appellee.

No. J-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

March 14, 1968.

T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Edward R. LeCompte, appeals an order of the trial court denying bail.

Julian C. Andreu, Edward R. LeCompte and Letona LeCompte, also known as Toni LeCompte, were charged by the Grand Jury of the State of Florida in and for Duval County in an indictment with having committed the crime of murder in the first degree. Upon being refused bail by the trial judge on a finding that the proof was evident and the presumption great, Julian C. Andreu instituted a habeas corpus proceeding in the Supreme Court of Florida, which court found in Andreu’s case “We are independently of the position that the proof is not evident and the presumption not great in the peculiar circumstances of this case, * * * ”

Appellant, Edward R. LeCompte, filed application for bail in the trial court which found “ * * * that the proof was evident and the presumption great that the said LeCompte did, on July 29, 1967 in Duval County, Florida, feloniously join in the acts alleged in said indictment, and this Court being without knowledge as to whether or not ‘the peculiar circumstances’ found to exist by the Supreme Court of Florida in the other Andreu case recently pending before it entitled Julian Clifford Andreu, Petitioner, vs. Dale Carson, Sheriff of Duval County, Respondent, Case No. 36,662, should likewise be construed to prevail in this LeCompte case inasmuch as such cases involve two separate defendants; * * and denied bail. We have reviewed the record considered by the trial court, same being the identical record which was before the Supreme Court of Florida in the Andreu case, and conclude that the “peculiar circumstances” found to exist by the Supreme Court of Florida in said Andreu case are likewise applicable to Appellant, Edward R. Le-Compte.

It is ordered that the Appellant, Edward R. LeCompte, be admitted to bail in the sum of $10,000.00 and that he furnish a *107bond in that amount by two good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Duval County, or the Sheriff of Duval County.

CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.