alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12
                  SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        Computation of Ratios of Earnings
                   from Continuing Operations to Fixed Charges
                              Total Enterprise (a)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      Nine Months Ended Sept 30,                       Years Ended December 31,


                                            1999           1998            1998        1997         1996         1995        1994
                                            ----           ----            ----        ----         ----         ----        ----

                                                                                              (In Thousands)

Earnings from Continuing Operations:
<S>                                      <C>            <C>             <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>
   Income (loss) before income taxes     $ 94,620       $132,029        $168,177    $170,227     $150,219     $134,124    $ 76,098
   Fixed charges (see computation below)   32,832         31,019          42,326      34,785       43,028       48,779      47,575
                                         --------       --------        --------    --------     --------     --------    --------
Total Earnings Available for Fixed
   Charges                               $127,452       $163,048        $210,503    $205,012     $193,247     $182,903    $123,673
                                         ========       ========        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========


Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense before deducting
      interest capitalized               $ 31,241       $ 29,380        $ 40,369    $ 33,130     $ 41,147     $ 46,859    $ 45,900
   Rentals(b)                               1,591          1,639           1,957       1,655        1,881        1,920       1,675
                                         --------       --------        --------    --------     --------     --------    --------
                                         $ 32,832       $ 31,019        $ 42,326    $ 34,785     $ 43,028     $ 48,779    $ 47,575
                                         ========       ========        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges            3.9            5.3             5.0         5.9          4.5          3.7         2.6
                                         ========       ========        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========
</TABLE>




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

(a)  Amounts  include the  Company's  portion of the  captions as they relate to
     persons accounted for by the equity method.

(b)  These  amounts  represent  1/3 of rentals  which  approximate  the interest
     factor  applicable to such rentals of the Company and its  subsidiaries and
     continuing unconsolidated affiliates.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5023 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5023

To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic Acid, 5 Chloro-8-quinolinoxy, 
                          1 Methylhexylester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Young of Indiana) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic Acid, 5 Chloro-8-quinolinoxy, 
                          1 Methylhexylester.

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

SECTION 1. ACETIC ACID, 5 CHLORO-8-QUINOLINOXY, 1 METHYLHEXYLESTER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Acetic Acid, 5      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          Chloro-8-                                                         12/31/2015
                          quinolinoxy, 1
                          Methylhexylester
                          (CAS No. 99607-70-
                          2) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          2933.49.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

EL CAMPO VENTURES, LLC, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-560-RP

§

STRATTON SECURITIES, INC., et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Stratton Securities, Inc. (“Stratton Securities”), Daniel 

Stratton, and Shannon Stratton’s (together, “Defendants”) Motion to Amend Final Judgment and 

for Award of Costs, (Dkt. 115), and Plaintiff El Campo Ventures LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) response, (Dkt. 

119). In their motion, Defendants argue that the final judgment should be amended to reflect that 

Plaintiff was awarded damages only against Stratton Securities and not the other defendants. (Dkt. 

115, at 1). Defendants request that the Court amend the final judgment and award costs to 

“Defendants”—presumably by which they mean the other defendants but that is not clear—

“because they prevailed on all claims asserted against them.” (Id.). In its response, Plaintiff does not 

oppose that the judgment be amended. (Dkt. 119). Given the lack of opposition, the Court will 

amend the judgment.

Plaintiff does object, however, to Defendants’ request for the award of costs, noting that 

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case, not the other defendants. (Id. at 1). Relying on 

Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak, Plaintiff argues that a case “must be viewed as a whole to 

determine who is the prevailing party.” 713 F.2d 128, 131 (5th Cir. 1983). The Court agrees. The 

draft jury verdict submitted by Plaintiff did not name the other defendants in the questions 

pertaining to the breach of contract and damages stemming from the breach of contract. (Dkt. 75, at 
2

51–52). Those questions only named Stratton Securities. (Id.). The omission of the other defendants 

may have been intentional or unintentional. Either way, viewing the case as a whole, Plaintiff won an 

over $4 million verdict. (Verdict, Dkt. 109, at 1). The remaining questions on the verdict form 

addressed Plaintiff’s other claims and asked the jury to make findings and award damages as to all 

three defendants. (Id., at 2–3; see also Dkt. 75, at 52–54). While Plaintiff did not win their other claims 

and those other claims were against all defendants, the Plaintiff is still the prevailing party in this 

case. 

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Final Judgment 

and for Award of Costs, (Dkt. 115), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 

motion is granted as to Defendants’ request to amend the judgment and denied as to Defendants’ 

request for an award of costs.

The Court will enter an amended final judgment by separate order.

 SIGNED on August 23, 2022.

_____________________________________

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000092827
<NAME> SPEIZMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                       5,216,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,696,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                   338,234
<INVENTORY>                                 12,097,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,458,244
<PP&E>                                       2,953,457
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,525,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,471,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,569,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       326,287
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,446,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,471,944
<SALES>                                     16,966,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,966,745
<CGS>                                       14,107,777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,152,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (46,754)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                861,229
<INCOME-TAX>                                   353,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            508,229
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   508,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        


</TABLE>
STALEY, OKADA & PARTNER                    -----------------------------------
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS                       Suite 400 - 889 West Pender Street
                                           -----------------------------------
                                                 Vancouver, BC Canada  V6C 3B2
                                                              TEL 604 694-6070
                                                              FAX 604 585-3800
                                                          info@staleyokada.com
                                                           www.staleyokada.com











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To the Board of Directors
Hotel Outsourcing Management International Inc.


We  consent  to the  use  of our  audit  report  dated  March  30,  2004  on the
consolidated balance sheet of Hotel Outsourcing Management International Inc. as
of December  31, 2003 and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,
changes  in  stockholders'  equity and cash flows for the year then ended in the
December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Hotel  Outsourcing  Management
International Inc.



"STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS"

STALEY OKADA & PARTNERS

Vancouver, Canada
March 30, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59873-59874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act; 42 
U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    Notice is hereby given that on September 14, 2000, a proposed 
Consent Decree (``Decree'') in United States v. Philips Petroleum 
Company, Civil Action No. 1: 97-CV-0144-B, was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the District of Utah. The United States filed 
this action pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7413, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for the Defendant's 
discharge of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere in excess of the levels 
permitted by the Utah State Implementation Plan (``SIP''). The 
violations occurred at the Phillips Petroleum Company's Woods Cross, 
Utah refinery.
    The proposed Consent Decree requires the Defendants to operate its 
sulfur recovery unit within the interim limitations established by the 
Consent Decree until such time as the State of Utah revises its State 
Implementation Plan requirements. In addition, the Decree requires that 
Philips pay a civil penalty in the amount of $375,000 for its past 
violations of the Act and the Utah SIP.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. 
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the 
Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to, United States v. Phillips 
Petroleum Company, Civil Action No. 1: 97-CV-0144-B, and D.J. Ref. # 
90-5-2-1-2194.
    The Decree may be examined at the United States Department of 
Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Denver Field 
Office, 999 18th

[[Page 59874]]

Street, North Tower Suite 945, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and the U.S. EPA 
Region VIII, 999 18th Street. A copy of the Decree may be obtained by 
mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. 
Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please 
enclose a check in the amount of $5.00 for the Decree (25 cents per 
page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Walker B. Smith,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-25718 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
<Page>


                                  EXHIBIT 10.3

                      Memorandum of Understanding with KCC


<Page>


                                                       KCC Process Equipment Ltd
                                                             91-93 Windmill Road
                                                               Sunbury on Thames
                                                           Middlesex TW16 7EF UK


March 15th, 2000

Mr. Stephen North
Voice Net
Unit 4 Pinewood Place
Epsom
Surrey KT19 OBZ

Ref:  Memorandum of Understanding

Dear Stephen

We would like to confirm our intent to use your Internet service in due
course on the understanding that in addition to usual Internet services, one
of the main benefits will be a telephony service to connect our various
branches in Suffolk, Sanbury, Houston and Abu Dhabi. Once we subscribe, all
telephone calls between offices will be Free of Charge. Unfortunately we have
just signed a two-year contract with PsiNet. However we may shortly require
an increase in bandwidth, and with the costs to increase bandwidth similar to
those for installing a new leased line in to your proposed ISP, we see no
reason why this should not be considered.

This is, of course, subject to the performance of the network which must
deliver an acceptable call quality to our staff, and a successful trial
period of three months. I understand that as one of your first connected
customers, we will be entitled to a first year discount to be agreed.

Yours sincerely,



Kevin Rowland
Business Manager



                                                    Telephone: +44(0)1932 815300
                                                    Facsimile: +44(0)1932 815315
                                                   E-mail: post@kccprocess.co.uk
                                                  Web site: www.kccprocess.co.uk
                                               Registered in England No. 1862795
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

APPLIANCE COMPUTING III, INC.

d/b/a SUREFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

REDFIN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 6:20-cv-00376-ADA

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF RULE CV54 DEADLINES RELATED TO BILL OF COSTS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield’s and 

Defendant Redfin Corporation’s Joint Motion for One-Week Extension of Rule CV-54 

Deadlines Related to Bill of Costs (the “Motion”). Having reviewed the Motion and finding good 

cause exists, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the dates in the above-referenced cause are

amended as follows: 

Current Deadline Amended Deadline Event

September 19, 2022 September 26, 2022 Deadline by which to file Rule CV-54.a.3 

motion.

September 19, 2022 September 26, 2022 Earliest date by which the clerk may tax 

costs if no motion is filed by this date. See 

Rule CV-54.a.4. (“The clerk shall not tax 

costs until the expiration of 21 days after 

the filing of the proposed bill of costs. If 

no motion is filed in that time period, the 

clerk shall proceed to tax costs.”) 

September 26, 2022 October 3, 2022 Date by which costs will be deemed taxed 

as proposed if bill of cost is uncontested 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 250-1 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 2
3

and if clerk fails to tax costs by this date. 

See Rule CV-54.a.4 (“In a case involving 

an uncontested bill of costs, if the clerk 

fails to tax costs within 28 days after the 

proposed bill of costs is filed, costs will be 

deemed taxed as proposed.”)

ORDERED this ______ day of ________________, 2022. 

____________________________________

ALAN D. ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 250-1 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 2
July 1, 2015

Mr. James Finch

9571 Ridgewood Court

Bloomington, IL 61705

Dear Mr. Finch:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a), 61.113(b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409 (a)(1),

91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 12, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−1208), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5128 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on ultrafine yttrium 

oxide phosphor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. HUELSKAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty 

on ultrafine yttrium oxide phosphor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ULTRAFINE YTTRIUM OXIDE PHOSPHOR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.69 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 ultrafine yttrium oxide phosphor) is amended— 

7 (1) in the article description column— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘Yttrium oxide phosphor, 

9 activated by europium’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘Ultrafine yttrium oxide phosphor, with a meVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:16 May 03, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5128.IH H5128

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5128 IH

1 dian particle size not to exceed 4.3 microns,’’; 

2 and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘subheading 3206.50.00’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘subheading 2846.90.80’’; and 

5 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

6 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.333-145048) of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. and in the related Prospectus pertaining to theIntercontinentalExchange, Inc. shelf registration of common stock and in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-130377) pertaining to the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan,the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. 2003 Restricted Stock Plan for Outside Directors, theIntercontinentalExchange, Inc. 2004 Restricted Stock Plan and the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.2005 Equity Incentive Plan, of our reports dated February 11, 2008, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc., and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.         /s/  Ernst & Young LLP   Atlanta, Georgia
#### DRIVER v. STATE.

No. 23858.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 14, 1948.

Winfree & Winfree, of Houston, for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted for the murder without malice of Nathaniel Brown by stabbing him with a knife and was given two years in the penitentiary.

The evidence discloses that appellant was engaged in writing policy for a gambling concern, and that the deceased went into the place with his uncle to make a check of the operations in which the uncle was interested. He was delayed in doing so and a woman in the place asked him for his ticket. The deceased told his uncle not to give his tickets to the woman, that she would steal them from him. Appellant entered the conversation which became a controversy between the appellant and the deceased. At the behest of the uncle, the deceased left the room and, it appears, he waited near the door on the outside. After making some threats the appellant left the room. According to the statements made by the deceased immediately thereafter, he attacked the deceased with a knife and stabbed him in the throat, from which he died in a short while. A number of other witnesses testifying in behalf of appellant told quite a different story. According to their evidence the appellant was justified in acting in his own self-defense. According to the statement of the deceased and his uncle it would be a case of murder with malice.

No exceptions were taken to the court’s charge and no bills of exception appear in the record. The brief filed in the casé takes the position that there is no evidence to-sustain a verdict of murder without malice; that the jury should either have acquitted him or found him guilty of murder with malice.

Under the law, the jury is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. They had a correct charge on the law and no question is presented for our consideration of which we have jurisdiction. The reasoning in the brief on appeal was, no. doubt, presented with force to the jury in the trial of the case and their verdict will not be disturbed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.