alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">206 West 121st Street HDFC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, -<br><br>against<br><br>Shirley Jones, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jack Stoller, J.), dated April 8, 2016, which granted tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding and denied landlord's cross motion, in effect, to reargue a prior order (same court and Judge) which denied landlord's motion to dismiss tenant's second defense and for interim use and occupancy.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Jack Stoller, J.), dated April 8, 2016, insofar as appealable, reversed, with $10 costs, tenant's motion to dismiss the petition denied, and the petition reinstated.</p><p>Tenant's motion to dismiss the underlying holdover proceeding should have been denied. Landlord was not required to serve a notice of termination, either under the provisions of the lease or pursuant to Real Property Law § 232-a, since the fixed term of the lease expired and the tenancy was unregulated (<i>see Adams v City of Cohoes</i>, 127 NY 175, 182-183 [1891]; <i>Yettaben Realty, LLC v Hae Sook Nam</i>, NYLJ, December 8, 1999, at 26, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept 1999]; 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant—-Summary Proceedings § 30:15 [4th ed 1998]). There is no indication that any month-to-month tenancy was ever created and landlord commenced the proceeding promptly upon expiration of the lease. </p><p>In addition, the holdover petition alleged a cause for eviction other than the mere expiration of tenant's lease (<a href="../2007/2007_27423.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Matter of Volunteers of Am.-Greater NY, Inc. v Almonte</i>, 17 Misc 3d 57</a> [2007], <i>affd</i> 65 AD3d 1155, 1157-1158 [2009]; <a href="../2009/2009_51473.htm" target="_blank"><i>80 St. Nicholas Ave. HDFC v Lewis</i>, 24 Misc 3d 134</a>[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51473[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2009]; <i>Hudsonview Terrace v Maury</i>, 100 Misc 2d 331, 333 [App Term, 1st Dept 1979]; <i>see generally 512 E. 11th St. HDFC v Grimmet</i>, 181 AD2d 488, 489 [1992], <i>appeal dismissed</i> 80 NY2d 892 [1992]) - i.e., that tenant engaged in numerous acts of specified objectionable conduct. Thus, the due process requirement for notice at this stage of the proceeding was satisfied.</p><p>The portion of the underlying order denying reargument of landlord's prior motion is not appealable.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><p>I concur I concur I concur</p><br>Decision Date: November 22, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00749-CV

IN RE John M. DONOHUE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On November 16, 2016, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered the petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on November 18, 2016.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-12457, styled John Donohue v. City of San Antonio

Police Department, et al., pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron 

Rangel presiding.
e REF ID:A272413-

Captain Lee W. Parke 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA 

n 09-19-2013 ursuantto E.O. 13526 

Serial: 00427 

24 June 1952 

Chief, Division of Cryptography 

Department of State 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Dear Captain Parke: 

I have no objection to State Department use of the particular 

embodiment of the electrical stepping principle described in your 

letter of 16 June. 

A security study of the proposed machine has been initiated 

in this Agency. Upon completion of this study you will be informed of the results. 

Certain minimum physical security standards as preViously 

discussed, l-Jhich are similar to those required by the Armed Forces 

for their high-level cipher machines, will have to be prov.i.ded. 

cc: AG (3) 

04 Comeback (1) 

dJ. Nailroom (1) 

04 Daily File (1) Ll2 Day File (1) 

MENO FOR RECORD: 

Sincerely, 

/s/Ralph J. Canine 

RALPH J. GANINE 

Major General., US Army 

Director, Armed Forces Security Agency 

R.H.Shaw/412/372/mt/19 Jun 52 

ColR.S.Sears/04/501/vrs/20 Jun 52 

HRPeterson/AG/60219/hsh/20 Jun 52 

The state Dept. is now using a cipher machine which is essentially the 

cryptographic equivalent of AJAX and HERMES. All attacks "Which work on 

AJAX and HEmlES work on the CSP 2200. It is considered imperative that the 

State Dept. proceed at once to improve their cryptographic posi ti.on. 

The machine which is described in Captain Parke's letter is a modification 

of the Em.i/SIGABA in which the stepping of the control rr.aze haS been changed 

to corresporxl to that in the CSP 2900, and in which the inde."C :ma:ze has been 

removed and replaced with the Jones Plug. 

Compromise by overrunning _an embassy would compromise the principle of 

electrical. stepping, but would not compromise the embodiment ol' it found 

either in the ECM/SIGABA or in ,,~e ,~~- 2900. .O.Q.ft 

:~, ·~·-.. :._. :) ~~-· r. ·~·
Exhibit 10.1







Description of Director Compensation Arrangements for the 12-month period ending at


the 2012 Annual Reorganization Meeting of the Board of Directors







German American Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), compensates its directors for their service to the Company and the Company's subsidiaries based on a twelve-month period commencing with each year's annual reorganization meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”).  The Board’s Governance/Nominating Committee made a recommendation with respect to director compensation for the new twelve-month service period to the Board and the Board approved such recommendation at its annual reorganization meeting on June 27, 2011.







For services of directors during the current annual period that commenced at the 2011 annual reorganization meeting, the Company is compensating its directors, including the CEO, through an annual retainer of $20,000 payable in cash during July 2011 in a lump sum (which is earned regardless of the number of meetings held or attended, and regardless of committee membership or attendance) and is paying an additional attendance fee of $500 for each meeting of the Board that they attend during this period.







In addition, directors of the Company will receive a meeting fee for each committee meeting that they attend during the current annual period of $350.







Additional annual retainers (earned regardless of numbers of meetings held or attended) will be paid in July 2011 in a lump sum for Director Klem’s services during the current annual period as the Board’s lead independent director ($3,500) and for the services of Directors Forbes, Klem and Bawel as the Chairmen of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation/Human Resources Committee, and Credit Risk Management Committee, respectively ($3,500 to each such Chairman).







In addition, those members of the Board (other than the CEO, who as a salaried employee of the Company is ineligible) who serve on the board of directors (including any regional advisory board) of at least one of the subsidiaries receives additional compensation for his or her service to such subsidiaries in the form of director/advisory fees for meetings actually attended of (i) $500 per meeting of the board of directors of German American Bancorp (our bank subsidiary), (ii) $350 for any meeting of a committee of the board of directors of our bank subsidiary or for any meeting of any regional advisory board of the bank subsidiary, and (ii) $350 (combined for attendance at both meetings) per meeting of the boards of directors of German American Financial Advisors & Trust Company and German American Insurance, Inc. (which are held quarterly and sequentially).







Members of the Board who attend sessions of the Board of German American Bancorp, Inc., or of the Board’s committees that are held concurrently with sessions of the board of directors of the bank subsidiary (German American Bancorp) or of committees of that subsidiary’s board of directors receive a single meeting fee of $500 for the combination of the two concurrent meetings.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-104315  of Emergent  Group,  Inc. on Form S-8 of our report,  dated March 2,
2004,  except for Note 15 as to which the date is March 31,  2004,  appearing in
the Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of  Emergent  Group,  Inc.  for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

/s/ SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 31, 2005
<PAGE>




                                 INFU-TECH, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

The following are the subsidiaries of Infu-Tech, Inc. ("Infu-Tech" or the
"Company").

     A.   Infu-Tech, Inc. (a Delaware corporation).

          1)   Infu-Tech, Inc. (a New Jersey corporation) (formerly
               Temporary Nursing Services, Inc.).

          2)   Infu-Tech of Florida, Inc. (a Florida corporation).

          3)   Infu-Tech of Illinois, Inc. (a Illinois corporation).

          4)   Infu-Tech of Massachusetts, Inc. (a Massachusetts corporation).

          5)   Infu-Tech of New York, Inc. (a New York corporation).

          6)   Infu-Tech of Tennessee, Inc. (a Tennessee corporation).

          7)   Intrx Medical, Inc. (a New Jersey corporation)
• 

REF ID:A487608 

From: Washington (Nomura) 

To : Tokyo (Matsuoka} 

9 May 1941 

(Purple-CA) 

Unnumbered 

your telegram.*** 

To the Vice Minister*, from Wakasugi. ** 

I respectfully acknowledge receipt or 

Because of various duties at this office 

it requires a long time for a secretary alone to handle long messages 

and the increased volume of traffic in connection with this matter.ff** 

(My message #272 ***** required 6 men working 

for 6 hours.) 

With the.opening of negotiations, the volume 

of telegraphic traffic is bound to increase tremendously. As time is 

at a premium in handling these communications, you can well appreciate 

the inadvisability of having only the secretary handle this work. 

Furthermore, it goes without saying that the increased traffic will . \ 

interfere greatly with other duties or this office. -

However, fortunately, our communication cler.ks 

have been constantly reminded of the necessitT of maintaining security, 

and they have faithf'ully adhered to this policy in their work. 

Although I appreciate the intent of your telegram *** from the standpoint of security, I, nevertheless 

request your authorization to enlist the aid of Horiuchi, Hori, 

and Kazuwara to handle communication duties under strict supervision. 

Also please authorize me to have Kawabata 

of Chicago come here temporarily- to assist us in our communication 

work. (Bring all codes and do his work in this office) 

*Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ohashi. 

**Japanese llinister to Washington, under Ambassador Nomura. 

**"See JD-1:2446, unnumbered, dated 8 May (Purple-CA), in which Tokyo 

issues Washington special regulations for custody of the Chief 

of Mission private code (CA). 

***5i-Japanese-American ne otiations bef11g co cted in great secrec7. 

_ ffil f]L 

JD-1:2494 {A-M) Navy trans. 12 May 1941 ( 7) 

!Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§
# C_2014260EN.01000701.xml

| 9.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7295 — Parkwind/Aspiravi Offshore/Summit Renewable Energy Northwind/Northwind)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 260/06

On 5 August 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7295. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7295. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
nr. s. a O&b'n8 

a.A, ~...ment or •~t1~ 

tlniverotty ot Ill1co1e ~I lll!MU 

!be 1hel.06ed letter rror:s ~ J hrre•ter 1• 

ill a.uwe-r t.o JOU?" 1Rv1tat1on of 17 hbruar"/ to po.rtie!pgte 

i». the WO'.tk ct Mi"· Na'Pbe:rson' • apec1e.l ~ ttec . 

or the ai-.tai-1 arou:r;>, OlU3 .-. lon.:r4 am Mr. ~~h 

..... xm. yet replted.. 

Ott beba.lt' or Mr-. MePberaon, a:cd. bl' e letter Mwl 

l lilu'cll, a COff1 of vbicl4 I H'llt ";'OU, I !D.V1 Wd Dr - v~ ktczml 

w part1.cipe.te ill ~ work at t® ~~n Comt-1~, ~ 

i. Ma¥ch Dr. von ~ ealled by telqhonc &04 I mve Mnt 

t8l!ter Hpurat.!- eoft:l" a. C09¥ t:4 ~ latte' ot tho.t &tt~ 'to hl-. 

~ fti.eh )'\'ll1 vtu gat.Jm" Whet tbw aitUAi;t<m a Vith l"ffiW'C°t 

io hU Pa.J"tlc!~t1Qn 1n the Mc?~n COCPittc1''• ~ 

l. IAelt 

1.tr h-o:a ~. J J'or-.cerrt~ 

cc: NJ 

c/s 

WllJ.IAM 1.. '2U!mfilf 

8Qe~1al Aaa1.-ta.."tt 

tf/ ASST (Mr. Friednnn) 

M/R: Forwarding Prof. Forresterja ltr to Dr. Cairns. Prof'. 

Forrester accepts invitation in the work or Mr. McPherson 1 s 

special panel. cr£ the :NSASAB. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

' ~. 

I• \ \ 

',\ \ ' \•
~~'-=--.£._:.,. • .,~ 

----

·-

• •' 

From: Berlin 

To : Tokyo 

3 May 1941 

(Purple-CA) 

#482 

REF ID:A487643 

(Oshima) 

(Matsuoka) 

r r~,r) ~ 

. ' 

~Stahmer 

STAAMAA called on me this da7 (evening ? ) 

and stating that this request was to be kept strictl,y 

secret, he said that Germany" maintains a rairly reliable 

intelligence organization abroad (or-"in the U.S."?), and 

according to information obtained from the above mentioned 

organization it is quite (or-"fairly""?) reliably" established 

that the U.S. govenunent is reading Ambassador Nomura•s 

code messages, and then asked that drastic steps should 

be taken regarding this matter. 

There are at least two circumstances 

substantiating the above (suspicion).. One circumstance 

is that Germany is re~g our code messages - - - -. 

/ Regarding this I during my previous residency here, the7 

/ were lmown to have a large scale cryptanalytic organization -

.. 

(unfinished - last two/thirds not available) 

*~ cr-.. :Q. \<i4~, ~ 1-o ~~ ~ W-N ~~ r &-C "(- c S . ~ cl.o ""NT"lr -l-.~ lt-. ~ . 

f:rG <:S 'g" '3\ t l l oK.. ~4~- ~ Ci\C CS o J ogo, >8~ 

w.~~ 

__,.,, Navy worked on garbled part and evolved this translation JQJI 

JD-1: 2369 

lltl" ~ ':>l ~ 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 

1-08-2013 ursuantto E.O. 13526 

(M-A) Navy trans. 6 May 1941
# C_2014130EN.01000401.xml

| 29.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 April 2014

2014/C 130/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3861 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4647 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82280 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0520 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2181 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3145 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,458 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,62 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2069 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4523 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9540 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4934 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5280 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7460 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6220 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7407 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 434,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,7439 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6689 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6065 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 062,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5303 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,696 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 49,9550 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,695 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1035 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1815 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,0392 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3861

JPY

Japanese yen

141,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4647

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82280

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0520

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2181

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3145

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,458

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,62

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2069

RON

Romanian leu

4,4523

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9540

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4934

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5280

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7460

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6220

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7407

KRW

South Korean won

1 434,49

ZAR

South African rand

14,7439

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6689

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6065

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 062,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5303

PHP

Philippine peso

61,696

RUB

Russian rouble

49,9550

THB

Thai baht

44,695

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1035

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1815

INR

Indian rupee

84,0392

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 9, 1999 appearing on page F-1
of Opta Food Ingredients, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
September 10, 1999

                                      -8-
Abatement Order filed December 17 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00760

- CR

____________ ROGELIO ALBERTO GUAR ADO , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 1524175

ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant Rogelio Alberto Guarardo appeals his conviction for aggravated
assault. T he clerk ’ s record contains conflicting information about appellant’ s right

to appeal . The record reflects appellant entere d a negotiated plea of guilty under a plea

- bargain agreement. In exchange for appellant ’ s waiver of his right to appeal, the State consented to appellant ’ s waiver of his right to jury trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.13(a) (“The defendant in a crimi nal prosecution for any offense other than a capital felony case in which the state notifies the court and thedefendant that it will seek the death penalty shall have the right, upon entering a

plea, to waive the right of trial by jury, conditioned, howev er, that, except as provided by Article 27.19, the waiver must be made in person by the defendant in writing in open court with the consent and approval of the court, and the attorney representing the state.”) (emphasis added). Such a wa iver is enforceable against a defendant . See Jones v. State , 488 S.W.3d 801, 807

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Ex parte Broadway , 301 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The trial court
entered a written certification as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a )(2) and 25.2(d). Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. The certification, signed by appellant,
reflects that “ the d efendant has waived the right of appeal.” We are therefore required to dismiss this appeal unless we conclud e the trial court ’ s certification is
defective

. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. Although the record does not reflect the certification is defective, f our months after the certification, the trial court ent ered another certification that this “is not a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” Thus, the
record presents conflicting information about appellant’s right to appeal.

W e abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of an amended certification clarifying appellant’ s ri ght of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(f). The Harris County District C lerk shall file a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the trial court ’ s amended certification with this c ourt within thirty days
of the date of this order

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2( d), 34.5(c)(2), 37.1.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot

.
. • REF 1i>:A52.2145 ~· ,1,3 J /?cf~ .. 

c~--P ~ ;J1:i/ 
• REF I~:A522145 • 

---------------·--------

------~) ~-~-~~~~-·-

-~---·- ·- ~-~~~~~~-

__ _.. _______ _
EXHIBIT 12 (b)

                              METRIS COMPANIES INC.
   COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>

                                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                                                        1998       1997       1996        1995      1994
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings before income taxes: (1) ................   $ 93,248   $ 61,883   $ 32,546   $  7,449   $  3,503

Preferred dividend requirement ...................   $  1,100
Ratio of earnings before tax expense to net income       1.63
                                                     --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Preferred dividends (2) ..........................   $  1,789

Fixed Charges: (1)
     Interest on indebtedness, and
       amortization of debt expense ..............     30,513     11,951      4,106      1,217
     Interest factor of rental expense ...........      2,134      1,313        378         50         26
                                                     --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
                                                       32,647     13,264      4,484      1,267         26

     Total fixed charges and preferred dividends .     34,436     13,264      4,484      1,267         26
                                                     --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Total available earnings .........................   $125,895   $ 75,147   $ 37,030   $  8,716   $  3,529
                                                     ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ...............       3.66       5.67       8.26       6.88     134.16
</TABLE>

(1) As defined in Item 503(d) of Regulation S-K.

(2)  The preferred  dividends were increased to amounts  representing the pretax
     earnings that would be required to cover such dividend requirements.