alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT12.1**

**DUKEREALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**EARNINGSTO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION**

**(inthousands, except ratios)**

 
| ** **                                                                   | ** ** | **Nine Months Ended**  | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                                   | ** ** | **September 30, 2007** | ** ** |
|                                                                         |       |                   |       |
| Net income from  continuing operations, less preferred distributions         |       | $                      | 53,680     |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                      |       | 45,679                 |       |
| Interest expense                                                             |       | 124,924                |       |
| Earnings before  fixed charges                                               |       | $                      | 224,283    |   |
|                                                                         |       |                   |       |
| Interest expense                                                             |       | $                      | 124,924    |   |
| Interest costs  capitalized                                                  |       | 43,880                 |       |
| Total fixed  charges                                                         |       | $                      | 168,804    |   |
|                                                                         |       |                   |       |
| Preferred  distributions                                                     |       | 45,679                 |       |
| Total fixed charges and preferred distributions                              |       | $                      | 214,483    |   |
|                                                                         |       |                   |       |
| **Ratio  of earnings to fixed charges**                                      | ** ** | **1.33**               |       |
|                                                                         |       |                   |       |
| **Ratio  of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred distributions** | ** ** | **1.05**               |       |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis D. Oklak, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner,
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 and results of operations of the Partnership.



/s/ Dennis D. OklakDennis D. OklakChairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General PartnerDate: August 10, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and will be retained by Duke
Realty Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tate~ ([ourt of §ppeaI~ 

for tbe jf eberaI ([ircuit 

SANDRA SUTTON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

2010·3147 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. CHB44E090B13-I-1. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Sandra Sutton's motion for a 

14-day extension of time, until November 19, 2010, to file 

her reply brief, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 
SUTTON v. MSPB 

NOV 82010 

Date 

cc: Sandra Sutton 

Sara B. Rearden, Esq. 

s21 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

2 

FILED 

U.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

NOV 08 2010 

JAN HORBALY 

CLERK
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Report
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Precision Drilling Trust
 By:
    /s/ Kevin A. NeveuKevin A. Neveu, President and Chief Executive Officerof Precision Drilling Corporation,
as agent for and on behalf of Precision Drilling Trust
EXHIBIT
23.1






Lynda
R. Keeton, CPA, LLC


375
Stephanie St.


Building
2 Suite 211


Henderson,
Nevada 89104


Phone:
702.914.0253


Fax:
702.914.0293


Email:
lcardno@keetoncpa.com







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS






To Whom
It May Concern:




The firm
of Lynda R. Keeton CPA, LLC consents to the inclusion of our report of August
14, 2008, in the audited financial statements of Prevention Insurance.com as of
April 30, 2008 and included in the Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2009
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.






Very
truly yours,






/s/
Lynda R. Keeton CPA, LLC


Lynda R.
Keeton CPA, LLC
#### Paque and another, Appellants, vs. Knaus, Respondent: Buth, Impleaded Defendant.

For the *appellantsEverson, Ryan & Hanaway*of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *North, Bie, Duquaine, Welsh & Trowbridge*of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004132EN.01001001.xml

| 8.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/10

---

Corrigendum to the Notice of call for proposals with a view to obtaining grants in the field of transport — Call for proposals DG TREN/SUB/02-2004

(Official Journal of the European Union C 103 of 29 April 2004)

(2004/C 132/04)

On page 97 the following point is added:

‘B.5.   Transport pricing in urban areas

Transport pricing in urban areas

Establishing a political network of city politicians and technicians that addresses the key issues linked to transport pricing in urban areas. The network should be city-led and should include cities at different stages of development and implementation of their pricing strategies. It should propose themes to be addressed and take into account relevant past and ongoing activities.’

---
#### Post, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*November 10*

December *4, 1928.*

*459The cause was submitted for the plaintiff in error on the brief of *Walker & Christenson**of Lancaster, and for the defendant in error on that of *R. M. Orchard,*district attorney of Grant county, the *Attorney General,*and./. *E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general.

The following opinion was filed December 4, 1928:

Eschweiler, J.

After the trial and sentence in this case, this court, in *Glodowski v. State,*196 Wis. 265, 220 N. W. 227, held a search warrant similar in form to the one presented* here invalid because it appeared from the record that the judicial officer had before him no proper testimony on oath as a basis for its issuance. If the objection there interposed had been submitted to the court below here it would have required a similar ruling. The general rule, however, has long been recognized that certain constitutional, as well as statutory, rights and privileges are waived unless they are asserted at the proper time and in proper manner. It was so held as to arraignment and plea in *Hack v. State,*141 Wis. 346, 353, 124 N. W. 492; as to place of trial and procedure, in *Oborn v. State,*143 Wis. 249, 259, 126 N. W. 737, an exception, however, being recognized as *to*jury trials, *State v. Smith,*184 Wis. 664, 669, 200 N. W. 638; as to search, in *Reiser v. State,*190 Wis. 248, 250, 208 N. W. 797; as to self-incrimination, in *State v. Lloyd,*152 Wis. 24, 29-31, 139 N. W. 514; and as to legislator’s privilege from arrest, in *State ex rel. Isenring v. Polacheck,*101 Wis. 427, 432, 77 N. W. 708.

If such constitutional safeguards may be waived and the right to thereafter assert them wholly lost, it properly follows that a specific objection which might have been but *460was not timely and properly asserted before the trial court, may be deemed waived if first asserted, as in the present case, on appeal.

We find no force in the other objection here urged and overruled in the court below to the proceeding to trial because of no preliminary examination as to the fourth charge in the information alleging a prior conviction and which first appeared in the record after plaintiff in error had been bound over to the circuit court. *Watson v. State,*190 Wis. 245, 248, 208 N. W. 897. We find no grounds, therefore, for disturbing the rulings of the court below.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on February 5, 1929.
#### Will of Rosewall: Houdek, Appellant, vs. Smith, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Elmer W. Roller*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *L. D. Potter*of Racine.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on May 17, 1938.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 29, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                       293
<INVENTORY>                                      6,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,195
<PP&E>                                          37,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,834
<BONDS>                                         17,392
<COMMON>                                            65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,543
<SALES>                                         74,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,762
<CGS>                                           46,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     43
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (171)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.22)
        

</TABLE>
### ___________________ ___________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### December 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 

### 132916(69) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr.


### PONTIAC FIRE FIGHTERS UNION LOCAL Stephen J. Markman,

Justices 

### 376, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 132916 v COA: 271497 Oakland CC: 2006-075367-CL CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendant-Appellant.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by de fendants-appellants for leave to file a post argument brief is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and comple te copy of the order entere d at the direction of the
Court.
HomeRadioactive Waste

# Radioactive Waste Quick Links

        - Other Quick Links:  Materials  |  Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 14, 2021
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 filing of the Quarterly Report of Headwaters Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), we, Kirk A. Benson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven G. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Kirk A. Benson                                
|Kirk A. Benson Chief Executive Officer May 7, 2009   
|                                                     
|/s/    Steven G. Stewart                             
|Steven G. Stewart Chief Financial Officer May 7, 2009
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

NICHOLAS COLE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

RADAMES GONCE, SLOANE PORTO, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2023

- 1601

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in No. 3:19

- cv

- 00978

- OAW, Judge Omar A. Williams.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

This is an appeal from a civil action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of Nicholas Cole’s constitutional rights. Radames Gonce and Sloane Porto move with consent to transfer the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , stating that Mr. Cole filed his appeal with this court in error

. We agree that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, see 28 Case: 23-1601 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 04/24/2023COLE v. GONCE 2

U.S.C. § 1295, and that it would be in the in terest of justice to transfer the appeal to the Second Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The motion to transfer is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

April 24 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 23-1601 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 04/24/2023
# L_2015164EN.01000101.xml

| 30.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 164/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/997

of 16 June 2008

on the signing on behalf of the European Community of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310 in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | Negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, have been completed. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, have been completed.

| (2) | The commercial provisions contained in the Agreement are of an exceptional nature, connected with the policy implemented within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process and will not constitute, for the European Union, any precedent in the commercial policy of the Community with regard to third countries other than those of the Western Balkans. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The commercial provisions contained in the Agreement are of an exceptional nature, connected with the policy implemented within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process and will not constitute, for the European Union, any precedent in the commercial policy of the Community with regard to third countries other than those of the Western Balkans.

| (3) | The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Community subject to its conclusion at a later date, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Community subject to its conclusion at a later date,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Community subject to its conclusion.

Done at Luxembourg, 16 June 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---
HomeNuclear SecurityRadioactive Material SecurityIntegrated Source Management Portfolio (ISMP)License Verification System (LVS)

# Manual License Verification Procedure

The purpose of this procedure is to guide licensees to verify licenses outside of the License Verification System (LVS), and for Regulatory Agencies to respond to such requests.

## Steps for Licensees:

        -  Contact the LVS Help Desk by phone at 1-877-671-6787 or by email at LVSHelp.Resource@nrc.gov. 
        -  Be prepared to provide the following information to the LVS Help Desk representative:  **Transferring Licensee information:**            - License-issuing Agency
          - Licensee name
          - License number
          - Contact name and title
          - Contact phone
          - Contact email
          - Contact fax number  **Receiving licensee information:**            - License-issuing Agency
          - Licensee name
          - License number
          - Amendment number or license issue date
          - Authorized storage location address
          - Material(s) being requested
          - Chemical/Physical form of the material(s) being requested
          - Quantity/Activity being requested 
        -  The transferring licensee will receive notification from the LVS Help Desk of the verification outcome as soon as the verification is complete by the license issuing regulatory agency. 
        -  The verification outcome will include a notification of whether:            - The requested materials, quantities, and authorized location are authorized on the license, or
          - The requested materials, quantities, and/or authorized location are NOT authorized on the license, or
          - Other reason (with an explanation) 
        - The licensee  must keep  a copy of the verification outcome sent by the LVS Help Desk for their records in accordance with the appropriate record-keeping requirements for license verifications.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 28, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Conceptual Overview of the License Verification Process
          - Manual License Verification Procedure
          - Help Desk Support

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 28, 2022
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 11 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
GEORGIA ROSA LEBOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CITY OF CLOVIS,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-2227 (D.C. No. CIV-97-1276) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Plaintiff does not appeal the district court’s dism issal of her claim of

negligent supervision. -2- Plaintiff-appellant Georgia Lebow appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant City of Clovis, New M exico, on her claims of sexual harassment under Title VII, retaliation for conduct protected under both federal and state law, and wrongful termination/constructive discharge. 1 Our review is de novo and targeted at determining wheth er there are any genuine issues as to any material fact and whether the movi ng party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). In conducting this review, we examine the pleadings, d epositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits, if any , making all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. See id. After studying the parties’ briefs and thoroughly r eviewing the record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the same reason s stated by the district court. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthw ith.

Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge