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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                  (In millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                              1996           1995           1994           1993           1992
                                            --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>     
INCOME BEFORE TAXES                         $  917.1       $  877.0       $  614.7       $  790.3       $  744.5
--------------------------------------      --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
Add (subtract):
  Portion of rents representative of
    interest                                    34.3           26.3           25.3           20.9           21.7
  Interest on bonds, mortgages &
    similar debt                                74.2           55.2           51.9           56.1           64.7
  Other Interest                               131.8           86.5           54.6           53.7           51.0
  Interest expense included in cost of
    plant construction                         (12.9)          (6.6)          (6.2)          (6.7)          (6.4)
  Income of unconsolidated venture                --             --            3.9             --            5.4
                                            --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
Income as adjusted                          $1,144.5       $1,038.4       $  744.2       $  914.3       $  880.9
                                            ========       ========       ========       ========       ========

FIXED CHARGES:
  Portion of rents representative of
    interest                                $   34.3       $   26.3       $   25.3       $   20.9       $   21.7
  Interest on bonds, mortgages &
    similar debt                                74.2           55.2           51.9           56.1           64.7
  Other Interest                               131.8           86.5           54.6           53.7           51.0
                                            --------       --------       --------       --------       --------
                                            $  240.3       $  168.0       $  131.8       $  130.7       $  137.4
                                            ========       ========       ========       ========       ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES               4.8            6.2            5.6            7.0            6.4
                                            ========       ========       ========       ========       ========
</TABLE>


                                       14
# C_2012387EN.01000202.xml

| 15.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 387/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 387/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6611 — Arla Foods/Milk Link)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 387/03

On 27 September 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6611. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6611. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: April 23 , 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Bill Lamason , EPA SUBJECT: April 23 , 2015 Meeting with American Chemistry Council at EPA, RTP
**SUMMARY** On April 23, 2015, a meeting was held in RTP with the American Chemistry Council to discuss EPA actions to include the Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

. ACC

– EPA RTP meeting attendees April 23, 2015 **EPA ATTENDEES**  **:** Juan Santiago, Nick Swanson, Nick Hutson, Ravi Srivastava, David Solomon, Marguerite McLamb, and Bill Lamason **ACC ATTENDEES**  **:** Name Company Bruce Davis DuPont Jarod Davis Dow Lorraine Gershman ACC Steve Gossett Eastman Patty Hemmelgarn Ashland Shari Keller Shell Scott Munk Baye r CropScience Derek Reese ExxonMobil Ro Sharma Lyo ndellBasell Steve Smith Lyo ndellBasell Rick Vickery Chemours Gindi Vincent ExxonMobil Russell Wozniak Dow Via phone Fred Fedri OxyC hem Anu Kunapuli Merck Carrie Phillips CPChem Teresa Reksel Evonik
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

54) VI-B-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37 PM Sheet 54 of 107 
P.2 

A-90-37 

VI-B-5 

This document has been moved to IV-D-327 at the request of the project 

officer. It was incorrectly categorize originally.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3904

_____________________________
D ERRICK F REDERICK , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Russell Healey , Judge

. November 28, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Derrick Frederick, pro se , Appellant

.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CN.53 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3691
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010 Last Day to Mail Back 2010 Census Forms Residents Urged to Act Today or Risk Visit from Census Workers in May Residents are encouraged to mail back their 2010 Census forms today. Those who wait to mail back their forms should expect to be visited by census workers, who will visit homes in person to ensure an accurate count of every person living in the United States. Census takers, who are members of the community in which they are working, will visit a household up to six times, each time leaving a door hanger featuring a phone number. Residents can call the number on the hanger to schedule a visit and be counted. "Now's the time to clear off your kitchen table and stick that form in the mail," U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. "Residents who fail to mail back their forms today should be prepared to get a knock on their doors in May and July." Nationwide, about 68 percent of households have mailed back their census forms. In 2000, the mail participation rate was 72 percent. ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide. The 2010 Census form is one of the shortest in U.S. history, consisting of 10 questions, taking about 10 minutes to complete. Strict confidentiality laws protect the respondents and the information they provide.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1946 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to modify the 

authorization of appropriations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. SCHATZ, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 

to modify the authorization of appropriations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE RECLAMATION SAFETY 

4 OF DAMS ACT OF 1978. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

6 5 of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 

7 U.S.C. 509) is amended in the first sentence by striking 

8 ‘‘necessary and, effective’’ and all that follows through 

9 ‘‘herein’’ and inserting ‘‘necessary’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1946 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 4(c) of the 

2 Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 

3 508(c)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) 

4 by striking ‘‘additional’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013104EN.01000601.xml

| 10.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6834 — Goldman Sachs/TPG Lundy/Brookgate)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 104/02

On 14 March 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6834. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6834. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### GULF HOTEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. The HIALEAH-MIAMI SPRINGS BANK, Appellee.

No. 71-413.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

Ralph Goberna and Harold Ungerleider, Miami, for appellant.

Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth and Robert J. Paterno, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed; See Krest-View Nursing Home, Inc. v. Sokolow, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 775.
Order entered February 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00159-CV

KBIDC INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant

V.

ZURU TOYS INC., ZURU INC., AND ZURU LTD., TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC AND 

JOSH MALONE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-05584-2017

ORDER

The jury charge was omitted from the clerk’s record in this appeal. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record by February 14, 

2020 containing the jury charge in this case.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### George Young, Respondent, *vs.*John P. Bruce, *et al.,*Appellants.

Judgment affirmed.

*Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common*. *Pleas.*

*Hill 8? Carter,*for Appellants.

*Strongs 8f Hederburg, and Vinton Pike,*for Eespondent.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on a promissory note.

The petition charges, that the defendant executed the note by the description of John P. Bruce & Co.

This allegation was denied by the defendant’s answer. The ease was submitted to the court, as a jury, and evidence was *328given tending to prove plaintiff’s case, and a verdict and judgment were rendered fot plaintiff.

The only material point raised by tbe appellant is, that the judgment was for too’much; that the note was due ninety days after date, and the court in rendering the judgment, calculated the interest from the date.

This point was not made in the court below and- ought not to be urged here for the first time. It is evidently an after thought, as it might have been corrected by a remittitur, or by a motion for a new trial. No such reason appears in the motion for a new trial. This court might correct the judgment now, but there is so little merit in this appeal, that the damages suffered by the plaintiff by the delay no doubt amount to more than the alleged error.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Judges Tories and Sherwood concur; Judges Napton and Wagner absent.
SCPR-20-0000733 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
IN RE GERONIMO VALDRIZ, JR., Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard,

assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition to resign and surrender license to practice law in the State of Hawai# i, filed by attorney Geronimo Valdriz, Jr., pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that Petitioner Valdriz has fully complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g). Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-20-0000733 10-DEC-2020 12:10 PM Dkt. 6 OGPIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Valdriz, attorney number 3342, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i , effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 10, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Katherine G. Leonard

2
----

**Exhibit      32.2**

**SECTION      906 CERTIFICATION**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,                2005                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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of The                Amacore Group, Inc.         |

|   | /s/                *James                L. Koenig     *                            James                L. KoenigActing                Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lennis LANDRY.

No. 52829.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1973.

*518Murphy W. Bell, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Lennis Landry, was found guilty of the crime of manslaughter, and was sentenced to serve five years in the state penitentiary, La.R.S. 14:31. Although the defendant reserved and perfected five bills of exceptions during the proceedings, he has expressly abandoned four bills in his brief and submits only Bill of Exceptions No. 2 for consideration by this Court.

The bill alleges the trial judge erred when he allowed the preliminary hearing testimony of Jessie Lee Handley (who died before the trial) to be introduced at trial and read to the jury. This testimony was offered under authority of La.C.Cr.P. Art. 295, which permits the use of testimony taken at the preliminary examination at the trial when the witness is dead at the time.

The sole basis upon which objection was made to the use of this testimony is that it “would be most prejudicial to the defendant inasmuch as the jurors were deprived of the benefit of the demeanor of said witness which is evidence as well as what the witness is saying.”

The witness whose transcribed testimony was utilized by the state had been subjected to extensive cross examination (10 pages of transcript, 19 pages of rambling direct testimony) by the accused’s counsel. Cf., State v. Augustine, 252 La. 983, 215 So.2d 634 (1968).

We have previously held, with full discussion of authorities, that any constitutional right of confrontation and of evaluation of testimony is not violated under circumstances such as the present, where the witness is unavailable for the trial and where adequate opportunity for cross-examination was afforded at the preliminary examination. State v. Jones, 261 La. 422, 259 So.2d 899 (1972).

In brief, the defendant additionally claims prejudice by the questioning by the trial judge. Although our examination discloses that the trial court sought no more than to clarify some pertinent facts not immediately discernible by the witness’s confusing direct testimony, we are unable to consider this contention. It was waived by a failure to object on this basis, either in advance of the reading to the jury of the testimony of the preliminary examination or else, at least, at the time the portions of the direct examination now complained of were read to the jury. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 841.

Therefore, we do not find any violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial and a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution or under the Louisiana Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9.

This bill is without merit.

For these reasons, the sentence and conviction are affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


                           INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Maxim Pharmaceuticals:

We consent to the use of our report incorporated herein by reference in the
registration statement.





/s/ KPMG LLP
San Diego, California
September 12, 2000
#### Nathan MANILOW, Rose Gould, Al Isaacson, and Arther Bieler, Appellants, v. Eli WHITE, Appellee.

No. 70-767.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 21


                          SMTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


All subsidiaries are 100% owned by SMTEK International, Inc., except as
otherwise indicated, and are included in the consolidated financial
statements.  Each subsidiary was organized in the jurisdiction specified under
its name in the following list.


DDL Europe Limited
(holding company only)
Northern Ireland

SMTEK Europe Limited
(100%-owned by DDL Europe Limited)
Northern Ireland

Jolt Techology, Inc.
Delaware

SMTEK, Inc., dba SMTEK Thousand Oaks
California

Technetics, Inc., dba SMTEK San Diego
California

SMTEK New England, Inc.
Massachusetts

SMTEK Santa Clara, Inc.
California

SMTEK International (Thailand) Limited
Thailand
Exhibit 23(a)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 33-56282) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-173212)
on Form S-3 of Dataram Corporation and of our report dated July 28, 2011,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Dataram Corporation and
Subsidiaries as of April 30, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended April 30, 2011 which report appears
in the April 30, 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dataram Corporation.


/s/ J.H. Cohn, LLP

Roseland, New Jersey
July 28, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CFC International,  Inc.
and  subsidiaries  (the "Company") for the quarter period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I Roger F. Hruby, Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company,  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.



     /s/                                             Roger F. Hruby
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Name:        Roger F. Hruby
     Title:       Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer
     Date:        July 29, 2003

This   certification   accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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