alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                SIMMONS COMPANY
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                     PREDECESSOR                               SUCCESSOR
                             ------------------------------------------------------------   ----------------
                             FOR THE    FOR THE    FOR THE    FOR THE
                               YEAR       YEAR       YEAR       YEAR       PERIOD FROM        PERIOD FROM
                              ENDED      ENDED      ENDED      ENDED      DEC. 29, 2002      DEC. 20, 2003
                             DEC. 25,   DEC. 25,   DEC. 25,   DEC. 25,   THROUGH DEC. 19,   THROUGH DEC. 27,
                               1999       2000       2001       2002           2003               2003
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)       --------   --------   --------   --------   ----------------   ----------------
<S>                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>                <C>
Pre-tax income (loss) from
  operations...............  $12,363)   $23,355)  ($17,783)   $10,285        ($42,941)          ($8,017)
Fixed charges:
Interest expense and
  amortization of debt
  discount and financing
  costs....................   38,418     40,596     39,971     32,193          45,289             4,665
Rentals -- 13%(1)..........    1,820      2,002      2,281      2,696           3,911                88
                             --------   --------   -------    -------        --------           -------
Total fixed charges........   40,238     42,588     42,252     34,889          49,200             4,753
                             --------   --------   -------    -------        --------           -------
Earnings before income
  taxes and fixed
  charges..................  $27,875    $19,233    $24,469    $45,174        $  6,259           ($3,264)
                             --------   --------   -------    -------        --------           -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges(2)...............      .69x       .45x       .58x      1.29x            .13x                A
                             --------   --------   -------    -------        --------           -------
</Table>

(1) The percent of rent included in the calculation is a reasonable
    approximation of the interest factor in the Company's operating leases.

(2) Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges in 1999, 2000, 2001 and
    Predecessor '03 by $12.4 million, $23.4 million, $17.8 million and $42.9
    million, respectively.

(A) In successor period 2003 the company's earnings insufficient to
    cover fixed charges. We would need an amount equal to $8.1 million to cover
    this deficiency.
Prepared by MerrillDirect





AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


             This
Amendment to Employment Agreement is effective as of August 14, 2000 between
Winland Electronics, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation (the “Corporation”), and W.
Kirk Hankins (“Employee”).


RECITALS


             A.         The Corporation and Employee are
parties to an Employment Agreement dated January 1, 1999 (the “Employment
Agreement”) which provides at Section 2.1 that the Employee shall be employed
as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation.


             B.          Effective August 14, 2000, the
Corporation hired Ms. Jennifer A Thompson to serve as the Corporation’s Vice
President of Financial Operations and assume the duties previously performed by
Employee in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer.


             C.          The Corporation and Employee wish to
amend the Employment Agreement to clarify that Employee will no longer serve as
the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation.


AGREEMENT


             NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and
agreements contained in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows:


             1.          Amendment.  The first sentence of Section 2.1 of the
Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:  “During the Initial Term, Employee shall be
employed as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and/or such other
positions to which the Board of Directors of the Corporation may appoint
Employee.”


             2.          Other Terms.  Except as provided in the immediately
preceding paragraph, all other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain
valid and enforceable to the same extent as before this Amendment.


             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the
day and year first above written.


	 	WINLAND
  ELECTRONICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By  /s/ Lorin E. Krueger
	 	   Lorin E. Krueger, President and COO
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/
  W. Kirk Hankins
	 	W.
  Kirk Hankins
# C_2005046EN.01000201.xml

| 22.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3689 — BT/Albacom)

(2005/C 46/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 31 January 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3689. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3689. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CINDY C. FOSTER,

 Appellant,

v.

FIDEL RENTERIA,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00180-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2009CM5945)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed. Because Appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time, we dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution.

On July 18, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant’s attorney that Appellant’s brief

was past due and that no motion for extension of time had been received. The Clerk also informed

counsel that the Court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days of

the notice, she presented grounds for continuing the appeal. To this date, there has been no response

to the Clerk’s letter.

1

This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when the appellant

has failed to file her brief in the time prescribed and gives no reasonable explanation for the failure

to do so. TEX.R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.

– San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

On July 28, 2011, the Court received from Appellant a copy of an attorney grievance with supporting

1

documentation. The grievance was directed towards her trial counsel, not appellate counsel. The documentation also

includes a grievance against the trial judge.
GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

August 17, 2011

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32
                             RULE 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Central
Bank Corporation (the "Corporation") that the Annual Report of the Corporation
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation
as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
included in this report.


Dated: March 30, 2006                   By: /S/ DAVID A. WIDLAK
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            David A. Widlak
                                            President and CEO
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 30, 2006                   By: /S/ RAY T. COLONIUS
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Ray T. Colonius
                                            CFO and Treasurer
                                            (Principal Financial and
                                            Accounting Officer)
# C_2004284EN.01000603.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/6

---

Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-357/04 P)

(2004/C 284/13)

An appeal against the order made on 27 May 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-379/02 between Antonio Adolfi and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 August 2004 by Antonio Adolfi, represented by Salvatore Amato.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the appeal and annul the order of the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant submits that, contrary to the decision of the Court of First Instance, his action brought on 18 December 2002 was not out of time.

---
<PAGE>

                         AMERIKING, INC.
       CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Dec. 26, 2000 to              Dec. 28, 1999 to
                                                    Dec. 31, 2001                Dec. 25, 2000
                                             --------------------------    --------------------------
                                               W/O PIK       With PIK        W/O PIK       With PIK
                                              Dividends      Dividends      Dividends      Dividends
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
EARNINGS
Income (loss) before income taxes benefit    (53,486,000)   (53,486,000)   (26,189,000)   (26,189,000)
Interest expense                              26,122,000     26,122,000     21,906,000     21,906,000
Amortization of deferred financing costs         722,000        722,000        922,000        922,000
Portion of rents representative of interest   10,577,000     10,577,000      9,898,000      9,898,000
Preferred stock PIK dividends                        --         659,000            --         621,000
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
Total earnings                               (16,065,000)   (15,406,000)     6,537,000      7,158,000
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
FIXED CHARGES
Interest expense                              26,122,000     26,122,000     21,906,000     21,906,000
Amortization of deffered financing costs         722,000        722,000        922,000        922,000
Portion of rents representative of interest   10,577,000     10,577,000      9,898,000      9,898,000
Preferred stock PIK dividends                       --          659,000           --          621,000
Total Fixed Charges                           37,421,000     38,080,000     32,726,000     33,347,000
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                 (0.43)         (0.40)          0.20           0.21
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
INSUFFICIENT EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES (53,486,000)   (53,486,000)   (26,189,000)   (26,189,000)
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
</TABLE>
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4314



# 
M ICHAEL F REEMAN ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-00-391-ALL) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 18, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Harry D. McKnett, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James G. Pyne, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Michael Freeman appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). In his brief, he claims that no rational finder of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The parties stipulated that Freeman was a convicted felon, and that the relevant weapon met the definition of an operable firearm having traveled in interstate commerce.Accordingly, the only issue for the jury was whether Freeman actually possessed the firearm.Freeman claims that inconsistencies between the testimony of Government witnesses precluded any rational juror from concluding that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is essentially one of witness credibility. The credibility of witnesses is best left to the finder of fact, who has the best opportunity to observe them. United States v. Beidler , 110 F.3d 1064, 1070 (4th Cir. 1997). Likewise, resolution of conflicts in the testimony is the province of the jury, not the reviewing court. See United States v. Murphy , 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this claim is not cognizable. We affirm Freeman’s conviction and sentence. 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. F REEMAN
# L_2015067EN.01003202.xml

| 12.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 67/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 67/32

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 of 19 January 2015 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, amending Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 779/2014

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2015
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2015

On page 24, the sixth sentence of Article 48:

for:

‘The provisions on fishing opportunities set out in Articles 23, 24 and 25 and ...’,

read:

‘The provisions on fishing opportunities set out in Articles 24, 25 and 26 and ...’.

---
Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0091

FROM: EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

DATE: April 14, 2015

SUBJECT: Meeting with the National Biodiesel Board

On April 13, 2015, EPA met with staff of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), upon their 

request, to discuss the potential steps in the process, pending public comments, that biodiesel

producers could follow to submit a new pathway petition to EPA requesting qualification to 

generate renewable identification numbers (RINs) for fuel produced from pennycress oil.

NBB Staff:

1. Lindsay Fitzgerald, Director of Regulatory Affairs

2. Larry Schafer, Senior Government Affairs Consultant

EPA Participants:

1. Sharyn Lie, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

2. Aaron Levy, OAR

3. Jon Monger, OAR
USDA Office of Urban Agriculture 

and Innovative Production

Reducing Food Waste

USDA’s Office 

of Urban 

Agriculture 

and Innovative 

Production

was formed through the 

2018 Farm Bill to improve 

USDA’s support for urban 

and innovative farming 

operations.

The office manages 

competitive grants and 

cooperative agreements.

A new federal advisory 

committee on urban 

agriculture and innovative 

production and new Farm 

Service Agency urban 

and suburban county 

committees provide the 

public an opportunity 

to have input on USDA 

programs and services.

At left, Metro Atlanta Urban Farm 

(MAUF) CEO Bobby Wilson talks 

with USDA’s Natural Resource 

Conversation Service (NRCS) 

District Conservationist Shemekia 

Mosley, State Public Affairs Officer 

Chris Groskreutz and Farm Service 

Agency (FSA) Beginning Farmer 

Regional Coordinator Rodney 

Brooks about future opportunities 

on his farm.

USDA Photo by Preston Keres 

prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United States, over one-third of food 

goes uneaten through loss or waste. When 

food is tossed aside, so too are opportunities 

for improved food security, economic 

growth, and environmental prosperity. USDA 

is uniquely positioned to help address the 

problem of food loss and waste through its 

programs, policies, and guidance.

Community Compost and 

Food Waste Reduction 

Projects

The USDA Office of Urban Agriculture and 

Innovative Production awards cooperative 

agreements through an annual competitive 

process. The agreements assist local and 

municipal governments with projects that 

develop and test strategies for planning and 

implementing municipal compost plans and 

food waste reduction plans. Implementation 

activities increase access to compost for 

agricultural producers, improve soil quality 

and encourages innovative, scalable waste 

management plans that reduce and divert 

food waste from landfills.

Who is Eligible? 

Municipalities, counties, local governments, 

State and federally recognized tribes, or city 

planners in the United States are eligible.

Learn More

More information, including a webinar, 

Frequently Asked Questions, and news 

release, is available at farmers.gov/urban.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. May 2021
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 13 January 2005

in Case C-38/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Wheelchairs - Admission to the reimbursement system under the social security scheme)

(2005/C 57/11)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-38/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström and F. Simonetti) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: initially A. Snoecx, then E. Dominkovits) supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 February 2003 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 70, 22.03.2003.

----
# C_2005006EN.01004201.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/42

---

Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Angela Davi against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-433/04)

(2005/C 6/82)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Angela Davi, residing in Brussels, represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 2 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 1 March 2004, by which she challenged the decision refusing to promote her from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 2 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 1 March 2004, by which she challenged the decision refusing to promote her from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

| — | If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

| — | Order the Defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in Case T-432/04.

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the
      “Company”) certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
      December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form
      10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.








/s/Jan
      W.
      Clark





Jan
      W.
      Clark


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


February
      28, 2006








This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.