alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1

EyeCare Centers of America, Inc.

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Exhibit 12.1



|                                                      |  |            |  |          |   |  |        |  |          |   |  |         
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------- |  | -------- | - |  | ------ |  | -------- | - |  | --------
|                                                      |  | 12/28/2002 |  | 12/27/03 |   |  | 1/1/05 |  | 12/31/05 |   |  | 12/30/06
|Net earnings (loss)                                   |  | 14,243     |  | 25,807   |   |  | 16,846 |  | (2,804   | ) |  | 10,768  
|Add: Income tax provision (benefit)                   |  | 1,258      |  | (9,600   | ) |  | 5,302  |  | 4,242    |   |  | 11,885  
|                                                      |  |            |  |          |   |  |        |  |          |   |  |         
|                                                      |  | 15,501     |  | 16,207   |   |  | 22,148 |  | 1,438    |   |  | 22,653  
|                                                      |  |            |  |          |  
|Fixed Charges:                                        |  |            |  |          |   |  |        |  |          |   |  |         
|Interest expense, net                                 |  | 21,051     |  | 20,200   |   |  | 20,216 |  | 28,969   |   |  | 31,599  
|Interest factor portion of rent expense               |  | 8,600      |  | 8,768    |   |  | 8,881  |  | 9,029    |   |  | 9,575   
|                                                      |  |            |  |          |   |  |        |  |          |   |  |         
|Total fixed charges                                   |  | 29,651     |  | 28,968   |   |  | 29,097 |  | 37,998   |   |  | 41,174  
|                                                      |  |            |  |          |  
|Earnings (loss) before income taxes and fixed charges |  | 45,152     |  | 45,175   |   |  | 51,245 |  | 39,436   |   |  | 63,827  
|                                                      |  |            |  |          |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    |  | 1.52       |  | 1.56     |   |  | 1.76   |  | 1.04     |   |  | 1.55
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Sam CEFALU et al.

No. 53424.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Sam Cefalu, et al applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 273 So.2d 689.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### William Fred ANDERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-568.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 25, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*57Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The sole point presented on this appeal is Anderson’s contention that it was a violation of due process of law for the State to have placed him on trial by direct information without having accorded him a preliminary hearing.

The last reported decision of the Supreme Court of Florida concerning the right of an individual accused of a crime to a preliminary hearing is Palmieri v. State.1 The Court declared that:

> "* * * under *.**[§ 901.23, Fla.Stat.] a preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. Rouse v. State (1902), 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784; Davis v. State (Fla.1953), 65 So.2d 307; Baugus v. State (Fla.1962), 141 So.2d 264. It is not an indispensable prerequisite to the filing of an information, Di Bona v. State (Fla.App.1960), 121 So.2d 192, 193; Davis v. State, supra, and is not a necessary step in criminal proceedings. Shea v. State (Fla.App.1964), 167 So.2d 796; Baugus v. State, supra. ‘A prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of whether such a hearing is or is not held, and regardless of whether probable cause to hold the accused for trial is of is not found.’ Montgomery v. State (Fla.1965), 176 So.2d 331, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1023, 86 S.Ct. 1955, 16 L.Ed.2d 1026.” 2

We therefore conclude that appellant’s contention has no merit in the State of Florida.

Affirmed.

1

. Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 633.

2

. Id. at 634, 635.
#### Muni Fred HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 27, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 300; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1969, 215 So.2d 617.
- Sy 1. I dg ie Rees Sie
7 3-1, wor igeies i 7,10, a7 a of ob nt fa eet nn, itn manor i 2, 161,10; 0099 oto Waa aRE OE
BB leeanraan fnarty by an aftimative maris‘as J: 5,20; 17,0) and 20 avo to bo negra

. . in :

Inhabitants in (2 ,.in the County of ei@Zer Z|). state

7 eS cae races we) —
enumerated by ‘me! on tho // | day of| Zewre- ’, 1870. |

fe ~ 90
ize: 722 = | 4 L ZZ oe ‘Asst | Marshal:

Meth. Je 12 |

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown

and %, Lay | y “leh
D
Le |
SP

NS

nani
Nin

PoP

|

ANS
iil

!

|

hy
&

h NSS

-
)

RK

NNNSN

ais
t

SS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ira JONES.

No. 61824.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Ira Jones, applying for writs of certiorari, review, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted in part. The trial court is ordered to hold an evidentiary hearing as to bail.
#### Leonard FOLDS v. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38730.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
No. 00-1121.

#### Kozel *v.*Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.
CHARLESJ. SIMPSON,JR. BY HAND Rudy Spruill 

## ZUCKERT SCOUTT b 

## RASENBERGER, L.L.P. 888 Seventeenth Street, NW; Washington, DC 20006-3309 Telephone [202J 298-8660 Fax [202J 342-0683 WY\Wzsrlawcom March 12,2010 Office ofInformation Services U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Application ofAll Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. DIRECT DIAL (202) 973-7926 cjsimpson@ZSriaw.com

--j

.. -j for an Amended Statement ofAuthorization (Docket OST-2001-11127) Dear Mr. Spruill: On March 9, 2010, All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd., filed an Application for an Amended Statement ofAuthorization in the above-referenced docket. We have completed polling and no carrier has objected to the grant ofthis application. We respectfully requestthat the Departmentproceed to grant this application as soon as possible.

cc: service list Charles J. Simpson, Jr. David M. Endersbee Counsel for All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.
#### Lester W. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Appellee. Louis POWERS, Appellant, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Appellee. Herman W. TURNER, Appellant, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Appellee. Samuel JOHNSON and Elizabeth Johnson, Appellants, v. ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. N-256.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 1971.

Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for appellee.

*770PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the orders of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Rare Medium Group, Inc.:

         Under date of March 3, 2003, we reported on the consolidated balance
sheets of Rare Medium Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2002, which are included in the annual report on Form 10-K. In
connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statement
schedule in the annual report on Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.

         In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.



New York, New York                                         /s/ KPMG LLP
March 3, 2003
#### Kathryn R. WEBER, Appellant, v. W. K. QUINN, Appellee.

No. 70-867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 1, 1971.

Schuh, Schuh & Woodard, St. Peters-burg, for appellant.

Waterhouse & Shuman, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

McNULTY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

McNULTY, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming as to appellant, but think the cross-appeal for interest is well taken. Plaintiff-appellee’s claim was for a liquidated amount and his judgment ought to include interest from the date said amount was found to be due not as here, from the date of the judgment. Cf., English and American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., Fla.App., 218 So.2d 453, 457.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,377
<INVENTORY>                                      3,062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,751
<PP&E>                                          76,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,832
<BONDS>                                         21,822
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,211
<SALES>                                         23,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,267
<CGS>                                           17,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   630
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESENTED IN THE 1997 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,049
<SECURITIES>                                    10,716
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,131
<INVENTORY>                                      1,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,107
<PP&E>                                          11,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,170
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,112
<SALES>                                         64,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,862
<CGS>                                           19,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,483
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,910)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,187)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,187)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.60)
        

</TABLE>
Faison, George From : Sent : T o: S ubject: Attachments :
Hi George , Miller , Jeff <Jeff_M i ller@treated-wood

. org> Friday , May 30 , 2014 7 : 00 PM Fa i son , George TWC NHSM pe t ition EPA NHSM TWC Pet it i on i nfo on BTU and Quant i t i es 5 28 14

. doc

Here i s an e lectroni c copy of the information that we handed to you on Wed. Thx, J e ff

# TREATED WOOD COUN CIL 1101 K Street , NW Suite 700 Wash i ngton , DC 20005 Phone : (202) 641-5427 Fax: (202) 463-2059 

## ESTIMATES OF BTU VALUE AND QUANTITY OF TREATED WOOD BIOMA SS RECYCLED FOR ENERGY (as part of the TWC Petition for Determination of Identif y ing No n - H azardous Secondary Treated Wood Biomass as a Non

- Waste und er 40 C.F.R. Secti on 241.4(a), filed with EPA on April 3, 20 13) May 28, 2014


### BTU Estimates· : Waterborne: Borate-o nl y Treated Wood Co pp er and All Organic-Based Treated Wood
Creosote and Oilborne: Creosote (non-tie) Treated Wood Oilborne Coppe r Nap hth enate T reated Wood Pentac hloroph enol Treated Wood
Dual Treated Wood: Creosote and Borate Oilborne Coppe r Nap hth e n ate a nd Bor ate 7, 2 00 BTU per pound 300,000 BTU per cubic foot 7, 200 BTU per pound 300,000 BTU per cub ic foot

7,900 BTU per pound 400 ,0 00 BTU per cubic foot 7, l 00 BTU per pound 290 , 000 BTU per cubic foot 7, I00 BTU per pound 290,000 BTU per c ubi c foot

7,500 BTU per pound 350 , 000 BTU per cubic foot 7,200 BTU per pound 300 , 000 B TU per cubic foot

·BTU values derived from TWC NHSM Petit ion to EPA , dated April3, 2013E s timate s on the Quantity of Treated Wood Bioma ss Potentially Recycled for E ncrgy t : Waterborne (as part of C& D recov ery): Borate-only Treated Wood
Copper and All O rganic-Based Treated Wood

Creosote a nd Oilb orne : C reos ot e (non-tie) Treated Wood (actua l) Oilborne Cop per Naphthe nate T reated Wood Pen tac hl orophenol Treated Wood (ac tu a l)
Dual Treated Wood: Creosote and Borate Oilborne Coppe r Nap hth enate and B orate 7 , 800 million cub i c feet per yea r (MCF /yr) (50% of all B orate
- on ly treated wood used each year - 1 5 , 600 MCF , i. e. 3 % of 520,000 million c ubic feet per year) 1 69 , 000 MCF /y r (50% of a ll copper and a ll organic

- based treated wood use d each year - 338 , 000 MCF , i. e . 65% of 520 , 000 MCF /yr)

5 MC F/y r (20% o f 25 MCF used each year) 0.5 M CF /y

r (50% of I M CF used eac h year) 6.4 MCF /yr) (20% of 32 M CF used eac h year)

2 , 500 MCF /yr (50% of 5,000 M CF u se d each year) 250 MCF/y r (50% of 500 MCF u se d each year)

t Quant ity e s timate s derived from T WC Comments to EPA on NHSM Proposed Rulemaking , dated August 2 , 20 I0 , and LSU 2007 Statistica l Overview of th e US Wood Pr ese rvin g In dustry
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of BostonFed Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A.
Simas, Chief Financial 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 and belief:

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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

                                              /s/ John A. Simas
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              August 14, 2003
#### Mildred Hall LOMBARDO v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Donald Richardson, M. D., Methodist Hospital, Paul Byork, Susan Saucier and Brenda Bossier.

No. 61694.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Mildred Hall Lombardo, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 354 So.2d 731.

Writ denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>

                                  EXHIBIT 27.1

                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet,  Statement  of  Operations,  Statement  of Cash  Flows and Notes  thereto
incorporated  in Part 1, Item 1, of this Form  10-QSB  and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.


</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                  1,775,303
<SECURITIES>                            273,099
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             12,357,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        16,351,104
<PP&E>                                  9,936,432
<DEPRECIATION>                          (4,351,522)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          25,026,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   15,086,702
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                3,005
<OTHER-SE>                              1,374,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            25,026,855
<SALES>                                 7,497,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        7,518,413
<CGS>                                   4,454,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           4,454,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        4,138,998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      315,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (571,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (571,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (571,707)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.19)



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-122576-CV

JACKIE COLLINSMiItTxX, LtTdD., WhHiItTeE ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD., 	APPELLANTS

AND WeElLlLsS ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD.	APPELLANT

	V.

TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICTGoOrRdDoOnN S. SwWiIfFtT CoOnNsSuUlLtTiInNgG EnNgGiInNeEeErR, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 236thTH236TH  DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------NO. 2-08-083   -        -CV

BaArRnNdDoOgGsS PrRoOpPeErRtTyY MaAnNaAgGeEmMeEnNtT, L.L.C. 	APPELLANTS

T.D.F.I., L.L.C. aAnNdD G. WaAyYnNeE BrRoOwWnN	APPELLANT	

	V.

HeElLpP WaAnNtTeEdD II, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY THE        DISTRICT COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT            COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On aUGUSTmAYMay 13, 2008                           August 9July 5, 2006, we notified appellant[s] that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed theis court that arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2).  See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant[s], within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	On May 20, 2008, appellants informed us that ehthey no longer desired to pursue the appeal and therefore had no objections to its dismissalal.  Because appellant[s] [hasves/have] not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss theis appeal for want ofp prosecution .  See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant[s] shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.   CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:   August 3 0, 1, 20062006July 27, 2006June 139, 2008