alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013284EN.01000101.xml

| 28.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/1

---

2013/C 284/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 274, 21.9.2013

OJ C 274, 21.9.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 260, 7.9.2013

OJ C 252, 31.8.2013

OJ C 245, 24.8.2013

OJ C 233, 10.8.2013

OJ C 226, 3.8.2013

OJ C 215, 27.7.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### Johnny Lee PERRY v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46956.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 6, 1972.

Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace & Blessey, Gerald Blessey, Biloxi, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Harry G. Walker, Judge.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 24
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

        The   undersigned,   being  a  director  of  Detection   Systems,   Inc.
("Company"),  hereby  constitutes and appoints Karl H. Kostusiak,  Frank J. Ryan
and David B. Lederer,  or any of them, his true and lawful attorneys and agents,
each with full power and authority to act as such without the other, to sign the
name of the undersigned to the Company's fiscal 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K,
and any amendments  thereto,  filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
under the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and the related rules and regulations
thereunder,  the  undersigned  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorneys  and  agents,  or any of them,  shall do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  has signed and  delivered  these
presents as of the date(s) shown below:

/s/ Donald R. Adair                                5/27/99
/s/ Mortimer B. Fuller III                         5/27/99
/s/ David B. Lederer                               5/28/99
/s/ Edward C. McIrvine                             5/22/99
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                              DEAN HOLDING COMPANY

               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
               Period from May 28, 2001 to December 31, 2001 and
             Fiscal Years Ended May 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 and 1997

<Table>
<Caption>
                                            December 31,
                                               2001            2001       2000        1999        1998         1997
                                            ------------     -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                          <C>             <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Income from continuing operations
    before taxes                                36,501       110,550     135,810      94,945     117,341     105,535
                                               -------       -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                            38,655        74,053      50,147      39,098      21,101      15,071
    Portion of rentals (33%)                     8,963        14,924      14,181      12,488      11,029       8,927
                                               -------       -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
    Total fixed charges                         47,618        88,977      64,328      51,586      32,130      23,998
                                               -------       -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
Earnings from continuing operations
    before taxes and fixed charges              84,119       199,527     200,138     146,531     149,471     129,533
                                               =======       =======     =======     =======     =======     =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                1.77          2.24        3.11        2.84        4.65        5.40
                                               =======       =======     =======     =======     =======     =======
</Table>
Hearing Requirements

At Least 30 day notice prior to hearing date Notice given in promenant advertisement with dates,times and place of hearing(s) Plan available for review Notification ofRegional Administrator through Region Notification to eachAir Pollution Control Agency which will be significantly impacted Notification to the State For AQMA Plans, Notification to; a) Affected local Governments b) Planning Agencies c) Transportation Agencies d) Environmental control Agencies e) Economic Development Agencies f) Other affected states Maintain a record of the hearing with list of witnesses and text of presentations Submitwith the TIP, certification that the hearing was held in accordance with the notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3186 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3186

To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma, Louisiana, 
      as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1993

   Mr. Tauzin (for himself, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Fields of 
  Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, Mr. McCrery, and Mr. Baker of Louisiana) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located in Houma, Louisiana, 
      as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 800 East Main Street in 
Houma, Louisiana, is designated as the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record, map, or other 
paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in section 1 
is deemed to be a reference to the ``George Arceneaux, Jr., United 
States Courthouse''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Arthur BUTLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1386.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 22, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Metcalf v. State, 98 Fla. 457, 124 So. 427 (1929) and Metzler v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 886.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Vodavi Technology,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
David A. Husband, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) 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. /s/ David A. HusbandDavid A. HusbandChief Financial OfficerOctober 27, 2004
#### Amos WITHERSPOON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Harold LITTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 42794, 42793.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Robert Rosenblatt, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

*612ADKINS, Justice.

This is a direct appeal from the Metropolitan Court for Dade County which passed on the validity of Fla.Stat. § 800.02, F. S.A. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b) (1), F.S.A.

The statute provides:

> “Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.”

Appellants, Witherspoon and Little, do not question the nature of the act for which they were arrested, but rather, the validity of the statute on its face. They contend that the words “unnatural and lascivious” are so vague as to make an ordinary person guess at their meaning, and so broad as to invade the right of privacy and the constitutional rights of individuals guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights of the State of Florida.

A similar attack was raised against the use of the words “lewd and lascivious” in Fla.Stat. § 800.04, F.S.A., but this Court held the words sufficient in Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla.1971).

Under a factual situation almost identical to the case *sub judiee,*in Franklin v. State, 257 So.2d 21 (Fla.1971), the words “abominable and detestable crime against nature” in Fla.Stat. § 800.01, F.S.A., were held to be' fatally vague. However, in so ruling, we approved the language of the statute here under review, Fla.Stat. § 800.02, F.S.A., by ordering the defendants in Franklin v. State, *supra,*sentenced under that statute. See also: Morris v. State, 261 So.2d 563 (Fla.App.2d, 1972).

Thus, we reaffirm our holding in Chesebrough v. State, *supra,*and Franklin v. State, *supra,*that the words “unnatural and lascivious” or “lewd and lascivious” are of such a character that an ordinary citizen can easily determine what character of act is intended, and are thus secure from constitutional attack.

Accordingly, the decision of the Municipal Court for Dade County appealed from is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated November 22, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-213793) of Smart Trust 280,
comprising Smart Trust, High 20 Dividend Strategy Trust, Series 15.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 22, 2016
# C_2013314EN.01000302.xml

| 29.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7033 — Nippon Express/NEC Corporation/NEC Logistics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 314/04

On 21 October 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 32013M7033. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7033. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

DWAYNE ANDERSON, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 142 EM 2015 

 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of December, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 12.1

                      Dean Foods Company and Subsidiaries

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                -------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                FISCAL YEARS ENDING MAY
                                               ----------------------------------------------------
                                                   2000       1999       1998       1997       1996
                                                   ----       ----       ----       ----       ----
<S>                                            <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>

Income (loss) from continuing operations
     before taxes                              $173,274   $115,297   $143,730   $124,529   $(15,586)
                                               ----------------------------------------------------

Fixed charges:
        Interest expense                         50,148     39,098     21,101     15,071     16,316
        Portion of rentals (33%)                 16,797     13,916     10,758      8,417      8,735
                                               ----------------------------------------------------

        Total fixed charges                      66,945     53,014     31,859     23,488     25,051
                                               ----------------------------------------------------

Earnings from continuing operations before
     taxes and fixed charges                   $240,219   $168,311   $175,589   $148,017   $  9,465
                                               ====================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                  3.6        3.2        5.5        6.3        0.4(*)
                                               ====================================================
</TABLE>


(*)  The Fiscal 1996 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and "Income (Loss) from
     Continuing Operations Before Taxes" includes the effect of a pre-tax
     special charge to earnings of $102.4 million ($64.9 million after-tax),
     resulting in a fixed charge deficiency of $15.6.


                                       22
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of C.C.H., a Child

No. 06

- 22

- 00052

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 90466 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

. As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal.
Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 12, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Di Giorgio Corporation (the
"Company")  for the  fiscal  year  ended  January  1,  2005,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Stephen R.
Bokser, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence S. Grossman,  as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  each hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to his knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Stephen R. Bokser
-----------------------------
Stephen R. Bokser
Chief Executive Officer
March 17, 2005


/s/ Lawrence S. Grossman
--------------------------
Lawrence S. Grossman
Chief Financial Officer
March 17, 2005



This   certification   accompanies   this  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 (the "Exchange Act").

Such  certification  will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2014044EN.01000102.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7047 — Microsoft/Nokia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 44/02)

On 4 December 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 32013M7047. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7047. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
**Exhibit 12**

**CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON (USA), INC.STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(Unaudited)(In millions, except for ratio)**
| ** **                                                    | ** ** | **For the Year Ended **December 31, | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                    | ** ** | **2004**                                                     | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** | **2001** | ** ** | **2000** | ** ** |
| Earnings:                                                     |       |                                                         |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income (loss) before provision for income taxes(1)            |       | $                                                            | 1,826      |   | $ | 569 |   | $ | (481 | ) | $ | (464 | ) | $ | (1,786 | ) |
| Add: Fixed Charges                                            |       |                                                         |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense (gross)                                      |       | 5,731                                                        |       | 4,447 |   | 5,436 |   | 9,923 |   | 6,823 |   |
| Interest factor in rents                                      |       | 161                                                          |       | 159 |   | 167 |   | 187 |   | 104 |   |
| Total fixed charges from continuing operations                |       | 5,892                                                        |       | 4,606 |   | 5,603 |   | 10,110 |   | 6,927 |   |
| Subtract: Minority interests(2)                               |       | 642                                                          |       | — |   | — |   | — |   | — |   |
| Earnings before fixed charges and provision for  income taxes |       | $                                                            | 7,076      |   | $ | 5,175 |   | $ | 5,122 |   | $ | 9,646 |   | $ | 5,141 |   |
| Ratio of earnings  to fixed charges                           |       | 1.20                                                         |       | 1.12 |   | 0.91 | (3) | 0.95 | (4) | 0.74 | (5) |

----

(1)      Income (loss) from continuing operations beforeprovision (benefit) for income taxes, minority interests, discontinuedoperations, extraordinary item and cumulative effect of change in accountingprinciple.

(2)      Related to the Company’s consolidation of certainprivate equity funds.

(3)      The dollar amount of the deficiency in the ratio ofearnings to fixed charges was $481 million for the year ended December 31,2002.

(4)      The dollar amount of the deficiency in the ratio ofearnings to fixed charges was $464 million for the year ended December 31,2001.

(5)      The dollar amount of the deficiency in the ratio ofearnings to fixed charges was $1.8 billion for the year ended December 31,2000.

----