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



QUALITY STORES, INC.
Schedule Regarding Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(In Thousands, Except Ratio)



                                                      -------------------------
                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                      -------------------------
                                                       July 29,       July 31,
                                                         2000           1999
                                                      ---------      ---------
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                     $11,508        $ 9,079
  Portion of rent expense representing interest          1,551          1,400
                                                       -------        -------
                                                        13,059         10,479
                                                       =======        =======

Earnings:
  Income before income taxes                            15,004          8,250
  Fixed charges                                         13,059         10,479
                                                       -------        -------
                                                       $28,063        $18,729
                                                       =======        =======


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       2.1 x          1.8 x
                                                       =======        =======


                                                      -------------------------
                                                          Six Months Ended
                                                      -------------------------
                                                       July 29,       July 31,
                                                         2000           1999
                                                      ---------      ---------

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                     $22,230        $14,554
  Portion of rent expense representing interest          2,941          2,205
                                                       -------        -------
                                                        25,171         16,759
                                                       =======        =======

Earnings:
  Income before income taxes                             7,622         10,672
  Fixed charges                                         25,171         16,759
                                                       -------        -------
                                                       $32,793        $27,431
                                                       =======        =======


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       1.3 x          1.6 x
                                                       =======        =======
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27150]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 693 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-363, K2025-361.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27150 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90690-90691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26805]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

Notice of Board Meeting

DATES: November 21, 2024 at 10 a.m. ET.

ADDRESSES: Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-
202-599-1426, Code: 133 325 139 #; or via web: https://www.frtib.gov/.

[[Page 90691]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Weaver, Office of External 
Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Board Meeting Agenda

Open Session

1. Approval of the October 22, 2024, Board Meeting Minutes
2. Monthly Reports
    (a) Participant Report
    (b) Investment Report
    (c) Legislative Report
3. Quarterly Reports
    (d) Metrics Report

Closed Session

4. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (c)(9)(B), and 
(c)(10).

    (Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b (e)(1))

    Dated: November 13, 2024.
Dharmesh Vashee,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-26805 Filed 11-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
```
#### Petrus, Appellant, vs. Pierick and others (Interpleaded Garnishee Defendants), Respondents. Salzmann, Appellant, vs. Pierick and others (Interpleaded Garnishee Defendants), Respondents. [Two cases.]

*April 30*

June *4, 1929.*

*149
      *J. Charles Pile*of Dodgeville, for the appellants.

For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of *James E, O’Neill*of Dodgeville.

Rosenberry, C. J.

It is considered upon the record in this case that the findings of the trial court that the assignments made by William and Joseph Flynn were not made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding their creditors is supported by abundant evidence. It appears that there is not sufficient evidence to support any other finding, and the court was quite clearly right in arriving at the conclusion that it did.

It is urged also on behalf of the plaintiffs bringing the garnishment actions that a debtor has no right to split by assignment the funds due him from' his debtor, and that for that reason the assignments are void. The rule sought to be invoked by the plaintiffs is that by the great weight of authority an order drawn on-a debtor for a part of the fund in his hands does not operate as an equitable assignment as against the debtor unless and until it has been accepted by him. *Thiel v. John Week L. Co.*137 Wis. 272, 118 N. W. 802. Here the debtor, the administratrix with the will annexed of the estate of Ann Flynn, made no objection; on the contrary, at least impliedly accepted the assignments. No authority is cited nor do we find any holding that a third party may invoke this rule and require the debtor to refuse acceptance The assignments were valid.

*150We must again direct attention to the findings of fact in this case. They do not comply with the rule. Trial courts should not in making findings incorporate therein arguments, citations of authority, and other extraneous matters. We have repeatedly called attention to these violations of what is a very plain, simple requirement. We are glad to have the opinion of the court, but it should not be incorporated in the findings. We hope this practice will not be continued to a point where it will be necessary for us to return the records for correction. In this case it is not difficult to separate the findings from the brief and argument. In some cases they are so confused as to make it extremely difficult to tell what constitutes the findings and what constitutes mere statements by way of argument.

While the cases were heard together they were in fact separate, suitable judgments and orders were entered, and the mandate in each case will be—

*By the Court.*— That part of the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H39]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H39]]

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

                        House of Representatives

  The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro 
tempore (Mrs. Tauscher).

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that Ryan Levesque be granted the 
privileges of the floor for the duration of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), David Dutton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.

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.



|Date: May 6, 2011 | /s/ DAVID DUTTON
                     David DuttonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION AS
OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             196
<SECURITIES>                                     1,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                      718
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                         93
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,449
<PP&E>                                           2,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,627
<BONDS>                                            333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,307
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,951)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (3,386)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,060
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,728)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,728)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.72)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 24 (iii)
                              
                              
                      POWER OF ATTORNEY
            ------------------------------------


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned,

officer and/or director of ACCESS Corporation, an Ohio

Corporation, which is about to file with the Securities and

Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, under the provisions of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, a 1997

Annual Report, hereby constitutes Mr. Newton D. Baker, his

true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power

of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,

place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign such

1997 Annual Report and any or all amendments thereto, and to

file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other

documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and

Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and

agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and

every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in

and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes

as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and

confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent or his

substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be

done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set

his hand this 11th day of July, 1997.


                             JOHN W. WEIL
                             ------------------------------
                             John W. Weil
# Official Journal C 130/6 Ma

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 130 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 476 May 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 130

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 476 May 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 130/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 130/1

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 130/2 | Notice of call for proposals — European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) — Support for Democracy, Good Governance and the Rule of Law — EuropeAid/119508/C/G | 2 |

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 130/2

Notice of call for proposals — European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) — Support for Democracy, Good Governance and the Rule of Law — EuropeAid/119508/C/G

2

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2004/C 130/4 | Notice to readers | s3 |

2004/C 130/4

Notice to readers

s3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 51019 Summary Calendar

HERMINIA S. ALEMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
WEST BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CV

- 994

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff

- Appellant Herminia S. Aleman, proceeding pro se in the district court and in this appeal, asks us to reverse the district court’s denial of her
Motion for Sum mary Judgment and that court’s summary j udgment in favor
or Defendant

- Appellee West Busi ness Solutions, L.L.C. (“West”). We affirm.
Aleman asserted two claims of discrimination: (1) Age discrimination in terminating her participation in a training program for missing one full day

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-51019 Document: 00513007877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2015No. 14

- 51019 and (2) retaliation for her alleged interest , participation, or encouragement of
her daughter’s previous employment discrimination claim against West. Following the filing of cross motions for summary j udgment, the district court painstakingly explained the law applicable to the facts alleged by Aleman and by West and explain ed Aleman’s failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute

a prima facie case of age discrimination or retaliation . The court also
addressed the non
- discriminatory reasons advanced by West for its actions , which Aleman failed to rebut. For essentially the same reason s patiently and clearly set forth in the district court’s August 8, 2014 Order Regarding Cro ss
Motions for Summary Judgment , th at court’s Judgment of even date in favor of West is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-51019 Document: 00513007877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2015
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin led the Pledge of Allegiance, as 
follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 15, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1087

Lower Tribunal No. 14-7686

________________

Eduardo Orozco,

Appellant,

vs.

McCormick 105, LLC,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara 

Areces, Judge.

ADR Miami LLC, and Juan Ramirez, Jr., for appellant.

Law Firm of Gary M. Singer, P.A., and Gary M. Singer (Fort 

Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See McCormack v. Flens, 27 So. 3d 179, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2010) (affirming jury verdict and finding that defendant’s refusal to return 

funds after acknowledging that they belonged to plaintiff satisfied the 

felonious intent requirement); see also Masvidal v. Ochoa, 505 So. 2d 555, 

556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that that the defendant committed 

embezzlement, conversion, and civil theft where “the defendant lawfully 

obtained possession of the plaintiff’s funds to set up the escrow fund and 

thereafter converted the funds for his own use”).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1413 EULA S. HUGHES, Widow of Carl Hughes, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-0809-BLA) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Eula S. Hughes, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Edward Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Virginia for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Petitioner seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Hughes v. DOWCP , BRB No. 97-0809-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 29, 1998). 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
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 24, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50821

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANNY ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 3:06-CR-91-ALL

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Danny Ortiz filed a notice of appeal from “the Judgment in the Criminal

Case and the sentence pronounced in open court on June 1, 2006.” Although he
No. 06-50821

2

designated only case number EP-06-CR-91-PRM in his notice of appeal, we liberally construe it to include EP-04-CR-1411-PRM, which concerns the sentence

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. See Trust Co. Bank

v. United States Gypsum Co., 950 F.2d 1144, 1148 (5th Cir. 1992).

Ortiz argues thatthe imposition of consecutive sentences is unreasonable.

He contends that the district court incorrectly weighed the relevant sentencing

factors and that his term of imprisonment was greater than necessary to achieve

the legitimate goals of sentencing. He further reasons that his 70-month combined sentence is outside the advisory sentencing guideline range. 

The record reflects that the court properly considered the guidelines, the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Ortiz’s arguments in favor of mitigation when

it imposed his sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th

Cir. 2001). Furthermore, the consecutive nature of Ortiz’s sentence is specifically permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s. See Gonzalez,

250 F.3d at 925-29. Thus, the sentence is neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.