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

FIRST REPUBLIC PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION

(A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Merrill Lynch
Bank & Trust Co., FSB)

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                                  |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ----- | - | --------------- | - | ----- | ------------ |  | - | ------------ | - |  | - | ----- | -
|                                                  |  | Three MonthsEnded |       |   | Six MonthsEnded |  
|($ in thousands)                                  |  | June 30,2009      |       |   | June 27,2008    |   |       | June 30,2009 |  |   | June 27,2008 |  
|I.       Earnings:                                |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |  
|Net income                                        |  | $                 | 3,373 |   |                 | $ | 4,048 |              |  | $ | 7,342        |   |  | $ | 8,623 |  
|Fixed charges excluding preferred stock dividends |  |                   |      |   |                 |   |      |              |  |   |             |   |  |   |      |  
|                                                  |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |  
|Earnings before fixed charges                     |  | $                 | 3,373 |   |                 | $ | 4,048 |              |  | $ | 7,342        |   |  | $ | 8,623 |  
|                                                  |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |  
|II.     Fixed charges:                            |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |  
|Preferred stock dividends                         |  | $                 | 2,531 |   |                 | $ | 2,507 |              |  | $ | 5,119        |   |  | $ | 5,062 |  
|                                                  |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |  
|III.    Ratios of earnings to fixed charges       |  |                   | 1.33  | x |                 |   | 1.61  | x            |  |   | 1.43         | x |  |   | 1.70  | x
|                                                  |  |                   |       |   |                 |   |       |              |  |   |              |   |  |   |       |
EXHIBIT 10.21
 
 MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 2003 LONG-TERM INCENTIVES PLAN
 AWARD AGREEMENT
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
   1.
    
    Vesting of Restricted Stock Units
  (a)
    
    the satisfaction of the vesting provisions as established in your Grant
Letter (as defined in Section 14); or(b)
    
    your death or Disability (as defined in Section 14).
 2.
    
    Rights as a Shareholder
  3.
    
    Settlement of Vested Restricted Stock Units




---



##### 



4.
    
    Cancellation of Unvested Restricted Stock Units




---



##### 



5.
    
    Transferability
  6.
    
    Withholding
  7.
    
    Data Privacy




---



##### 



8.
    
    Applicable Law
  9.
    
    Amendment and Delay to Meet the Requirements of Section 409A
  10.
    
    Headings




---



##### 



11.
    
    References
  12.
    
    Amendment and Termination
  13.
    
    Entire Agreement
  14.
    
    Definitions
 (a)
    
    Award Agreement: these Restricted Stock Unit Terms and Conditions
together with the Grant Letter.(b)
    
    Cause: (i) a felony conviction of a Participant; (ii) the commission
by a Participant of an act of fraud or embezzlement against the Company and/or a
Subsidiary; (iii) willful misconduct or gross negligence materially detrimental to the
Company and/or a Subsidiary; (iv) the Participants continued failure to implement
reasonable requests or directions received in the course of his or her employment; (v)
the Participants wrongful dissemination or use of confidential or proprietary
information; or (vi) the intentional and habitual neglect by the Participant of his or
her duties to the Company and/or a Subsidiary.(c)
    
    Disability: permanent and total disability within the meaning of the
Companys long-term disability plan, as it may be amended from time to time, or, if
there is no such plan, as determined by the Committee.




---



##### 



(d)
    
    Grant Letter: the letter from the Company granting the Restricted
Stock Units to the Employee.(e)
    
    Retirement: your voluntary termination of employment with the
Company for any reason.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7520** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KENNETH ASHE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Bryson City
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cr - 00033

- MR

- DLH

- 2; 2:14

- cv 00040

- MR )

Submitted : February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenneth Ashe, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ashe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debata ble or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is d ebatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ashe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while we grant Ashe’s motion for leave to amend his informal brief, we deny the pending motions for a certificate of appealability and an evidentiary hearing, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately p resented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6000-6004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, tel.: 202-
622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (ofac.treasury.gov).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On January 22, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and

[[Page 6001]]

interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.

Individuals

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JA24.000


[[Page 6002]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JA24.001


[[Page 6003]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JA24.002


[[Page 6004]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JA24.003


    Dated: January 22, 2024.
Bradley T. Smith,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-01787 Filed 1-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
##### 



Exhibit 1.1
 FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES
 A
joint stock company with a share capital of
 2,891,118.67
Registered office located at VENISSIEUX (Rhône) Parc Club du Moulin à Vent
33, avenue du Docteur Georges Lévy
 R.C.S. LYON B 379.001.530
 BY LAWS
 Updated as of March 2, 2006
 ARTICLE 1  FORM
  ARTICLE 2  CORPORATE NAME
 FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES.
  ARTICLE 3  COMPANY PURPOSE




---



##### 



ARTICLE 4  REGISTERED OFFICE
  département département
 ARTICLE
5  DURATION
  ARTICLE 6  SHARE CAPITAL
 
 ARTICLE 7  FISCAL YEAR
   ARTICLE
8  ALLOCATION OF THE PROFITS
   ARTICLE
9  TYPE OF THE SHARES
   ARTICLE 10  SALE AND ASSIGNMENT OF SHARES
    2




---



##### 



ARTICLE 11  RIGHTS AND DUTIES ATTACHED TO THE SHARES
     ARTICLE 12  PAYMENT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL
  départment
  ARTICLE 13  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
      3




---



##### 



ARTICLE
14  DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
       Conseil dEtat
    ARTICLE 15  POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
    ARTICLE 16  CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
  4




---



##### 



ARTICLE 17  GENERAL MANAGEMENT
 Directeur Général
            5




---



##### 



ARTICLE 18  STATUTORY AUDITORS
   ARTICLE 19  GENERAL MEETINGS OF SHAREHOLDERS
           Conseil dEtat
  ARTICLE 20  POWERS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS MEETINGS
  6




---



##### 



ARTICLE
21  DISSOLUTION  LIQUIDATION
  ARTICLE
22  DISPUTES
    7
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

                         LSB CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

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 of LSB Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John E. Sharland,
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:

(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 of the Company as of March
         31, 2003 and results of operations of the Company for the three months
         ended March 31, 2003.

                                  /s/ John E. Sharland
                                  --------------------------------
                                  John E. Sharland
                                  Senior Vice President
                                  Chief Financial Officer

                                  May 9, 2003

                                       24
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1760

CARL G. SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY OF

NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-914-BO)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl G. Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Joyce S. Rutledge, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order and judgment

granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) and dismissing Appellant’s complaint filed under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994) (“Title

VII”). Appellant filed two separate charges with the EEOC and received two separate right-to-sue-letters. The district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint as to one charge (#141960280) because

the complaint was untimely. The court dismissed the complaint as to

the second charge (#141960425) because Appellant filed that charge

with the EEOC beyond the 180-day limit. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(e)(1) (1994). The court also dismissed other claims in the complaint for failing to present those claims to the EEOC. On appeal,

Appellant does not challenge the court’s basis for dismissing the

complaint as to charge #141960425 or the unexhausted claims.

Because the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, appellate

review is waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We affirm that part of the

court’s judgment on the reasoning of the district court. See

Sullivan v. Fayetteville State Univ., No. CA-97-914-BO (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 17, 1998).

As for charge #141960280, Appellant contends the court erred

in finding he failed to file his complaint within ninety-days of

receiving the right-to-sue letter. We decline to rule on this issue

and affirm on alternate grounds. See Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d
3

1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996). Defendants correctly argued that charge

#141960280, which was filed more than 500 days after the discriminatory event, was not timely filed with the EEOC. Therefore,

Appellant cannot pursue this claim in federal court. See Beall v.

Abbott Lab., 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1
 GARY SAWKA APPOINTED CFO OF QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS
 Union
City, CA  September 11, 2008  Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc
    About Questcor
 ® ® www.questcor.com
 Note: Except for the historical information contained herein, this press release contains
forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Such statements are subject to
certain factors, which may cause Questcors results to differ from those reported herein. Factors
that may cause such differences include, but are not limited to, Questcors ability to continue to
successfully implement its strategy and business model for Acthar, the introduction of competitive
products, regulatory changes including possible outcomes relating to a recent




---



##### 



Congressional hearing regarding orphan drug pricing, Questcors ability to accurately forecast the
demand for its products, the gross margin achieved from the sale of its products, Questcors
ability to enforce its product returns policy, Questcors ability to estimate the quantity of
Acthar used by government entities and Medicaid-eligible patients, that the actual amount of
rebates and discounts related to the use of Acthar by government entities and Medicaid-eligible
patients may differ materially from Questcors estimates, the sell-through by Questcors
distributors, the expenses and other cash needs for upcoming periods, the inventories carried by
Questcors distributors, specialty pharmacies and hospitals, volatility in Questcors monthly and
quarterly Acthar shipments and end-user demand, Questcors ability to obtain finished goods from
its sole source contract manufacturers on a timely basis if at all, Questcors ability to attract
and retain key management personnel, Questcors ability to
utilize its net operating loss carry-forwards to reduce income taxes on taxable income, research and development risks, uncertainties
regarding Questcors intellectual property and the uncertainty of receiving required regulatory
approvals in a timely way, or at all, other research and development risks, as well as the risks
discussed in Questcors annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 and other
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The risk factors and other
information contained in these documents should be considered in evaluating Questcors prospects
and future financial performance.
  CONTACT INFORMATION:
 dbailey@Questcor.com
 EVC Group, Inc.Investors
Doug Sherk
415-896-6820
Dahlia Bailey
415-896-5862
    
    Media
Steve DiMattia
646-201-5447
SUSANA MARTINEZ

Governor

JOHN A. SANCHEZ

Lieutenant Governor

January 24, 2012

NEW MEXICO

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

Air Quality Bureau

1301 Siler Road, Building B

Santa Fe, NM 87507

Phone (505) 476-4300 Fax (505) 476-4375

www.nmenv.state.nm.llS

DAVE MARTIN

Cabinet Secretary

BUTCHTONGATE

Deputy Secretary

Mr. Michael Feldman

Environmental Engineer

Air Planning Section - 6PD-L

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202

RE: New Mexico Dust Control Measures

Dear Mr. Feldman:

The New Mexico Environment Department currently has two Natural Events Action Plans in

place in southern New Mexico; one for Dona Ana County and one for Luna County. Both of

these plans are on our website at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/agbINEAP/dona ana2.html for

Dona Ana County and at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/agbINEAPlLuna Co.html for Luna

County. Dust control ordinances have been adopted by Dona Ana and Luna counties and by the

cities of Las Cruces and Deming. Copies of the Natural Events Action Plans and the ordinances

are enclosed.

In addition to these dust control measures, the City of AlbuquerquelBernalilio County Air

Quality Division enforces a dust control regulation adopted by the AlbuquerquelBernalillo

County Air Quality Control Board (20.11.20 NMAC). A copy of that regulation is also enclosed.

Please let me know if you need additional information regarding dust control measures currently

in place in New Mexico.

Sincerely,

Rita Bates

Planning Section Chief
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5
    
 
   
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
    
 
   
We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-12723) and the related Prospectus of
UROHEALTH Systems, Inc. for the registration of 5,750,000 shares of its common
stock and the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated December 6,
1994, with respect to the financial statements of Osbon Medical Systems, Ltd.
for the year ended September 30, 1994.
    
 
   
                                          CHERRY, BEKAERT & HOLLAND, L.L.P.
    
   
Augusta, Georgia
    
   
November 7, 1996
WITHDRAWN 7/16/15



### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00119

- CR

MAXEY KENNETH LOVELL

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 02819

- CRF

- 272

ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal.

This appeal is abated to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within

21 days from the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

38.8(b)(2) and (3). T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter ’s records required by the rule, if any, are

ordered to be filed within 28 days of the date of this Order. See id

.

PER CURIAMLove ll v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed July 9, 2015
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134253 & (12) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134253 COA: 277205 Saginaw CC: 05-026076-FC JAMES EDWARD GIDRON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is

DENIED.

t0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
    
 
   
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
    
 
   
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 and the related Prospectus of UroHealth Systems, Inc. of our report,
which included an explanatory paragraph related to the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern, dated February 24, 1994 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Advanced Surgical, Inc. as of and for the
year ended December 31, 1994, of which the results are included in the June 30,
1994 consolidated results of operations of UroHealth Systems, Inc. included in
its Transition Report on Form 10-K for the nine months ended March 31, 1996.
    
 
   
We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts."
    
 
   
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
    
 
   
2400 Eleven Penn Center
    
   
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    
   
November 7, 1996
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
[KPMG Letterhead]


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
`                         -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60463) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Incentive Plan), the
registration statement (No. 333-60465) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation Non-employee Directors' Incentive Plan), and the registration
statement (No. 333-66229) on Form S-3 (for a shelf registration to register
shares for certain operating partnership unit holders) of our report on the
consolidated balance sheets of MeriStar Hospitality Corporation and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999, and the related schedule, which
report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of MeriStar
Hospitality Corporation.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
January 28, 2000