alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFPERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS**

The undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial conditions and results of operations of  Summus,Inc. (USA).

 

| Date:      August 14, 2002 |  /s/ Bjorn D. Jawerth                                             Bjorn D. JawerthChief Executive Officer |
|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 12

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P.  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (in thousands)

For the Year Ended December 31,2008

2007

2006

2005

2004Earnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations

$
592,050

$
650,380

$
730,453

$
473,557

$
466,128Add:Pre-tax (loss) income from 50% or greater than 50% owned unconsolidated entities


(29,093
)

(9,061
)

45,313


49,939


46,124Minority interest in income of majority owned subsidiaries


12,431


13,936


11,524


13,743


9,687Distributed income from less than 50% owned unconsolidated entities


61,482


51,594


53,000


66,165


45,909Amortization of capitalized interest


4,927


2,462


5,027


2,772


2,525Fixed Charges


1,254,111


1,196,718


958,818


904,324


748,643Less:Income from unconsolidated entities


(32,246
)

(38,120
)

(110,819
)

(81,807
)

(81,113
)Interest capitalization


(28,451
)

(37,270
)

(34,073
)

(15,502
)

(15,546
)Earnings

$
1,835,211

$
1,830,639

$
1,659,243

$
1,413,191

$
1,222,357Fixed Charges:Portion of rents representative of the interest factor


8,996


9,032


9,052


8,869


7,092Interest on indebtedness (including amortization of debt expense)


1,196,334


1,150,416


915,693


879,953


726,025Interest capitalized


28,451


37,270


34,073


15,502


15,546Loss on extinguishment of debt


20,330











Fixed Charges

$
1,254,111

$
1,196,718

$
958,818

$
904,324

$
748,643Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


1.46
x

1.53
x

1.73
x

1.56
x

1.63
x


For
purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, "earnings" have been computed by adding fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest, to income from continuing
operations including income from minority interests and our share of income from 50%-owned affiliates which have fixed charges, and including our share of distributed operating income from less than
50%-owned affiliates instead of our share of income from the less than 50%-owned affiliates. There are generally no restrictions on our ability to receive distributions from our unconsolidated joint
ventures where no preference in favor of the other owners of the joint venture exists. "Fixed charges" consist of interest costs, whether expensed or capitalized, the interest component of rental
expenses, losses on extinguishment of debt, and amortization of debt issuance costs.

120

---



QuickLinks
# C_2016146EN.01000901.xml

| 26.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 146/09)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : The Vatican City State

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 200th anniversary of the Vatican Guard

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The national face features a Vatican Guard in front of the Dome of St. Peter’s Basilica. At the top, in semi-circle is the inscription ‘CORPO DELLA GENDARMERIA 1816-2016’. At the bottom, in semi-circle is the name of the issuing country ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’. The mint mark ‘R’ appears at the left of the design and the name of the designer ‘D. Longo’ appears at the right.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : June 2016

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW -2014-0598

DCN: SGE00638.A12

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Fw: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 05/03/2010 01:42 PM

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/03/2010 01:42 PM -----

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael 

Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/03/2010 12:14 PM

Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

2pm sounds pretty good!

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:09 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov;

Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Heidi,

Looks like most of the monitoring/implementation folks can be available

after 2pm Thursday 5/6. Do you have a preferred time between say 2pm

and 6pm?

Chet

________________________________________

Richard A. "Chet" Wayland

Director, Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality

Planning & Standards

(919) 541-4603

 From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

 To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
 Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael

Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

 Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

 Date: 04/30/2010 10:38 AM

 Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Chet, that sounds like a good idea. Thank you for suggesting it.

Let me know if there is a time Thu 5/6 that works for your folks -- that

looks like a good day on our calendars.

Best regards,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov

[mailto:Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:36 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov;

Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Heidi,

Thanks for the call today. With regards to next weeks follow-up call,

it might be beneficial to have a first call on the science and standard

aspects and then a second call on any monitoring/implementation

questions. As you can imagine, the monitoring and implementation parts

are complex. If that approach works for you, let me know and we can

coordinate with you on the second call while Lydia's folks handle the

first call. We'll obviously have everyone on both calls, but since my

folks are more critical on the second call, we'd like to make sure we

schedule around their schedules as much as we can. Let me know if you

think this approach works for you.

Thanks,

Chet

________________________________________

Richard A. "Chet" Wayland

Director, Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality

Planning & Standards

(919) 541-4603
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600278

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

SHAWN W. FULLER

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry, USMC.

For Appellant: Major Jason L. Morris, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 30 November 2016

_________________________

Before MARKS, FULTON, and WHITSON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Aug. 13, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones DJI Matrice 100

This is a request for an amendment to Ex emption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015– 1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment w ill provide for the addition of the DJI Matrice

100 multirotor sUAS aircraft to the inventor y of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations currently covered under Exemption 11842.

These airframes are commercially available to the gene ral public, as are a ll components used to complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or

manufacture.

DJI Innovations Model Matrice 100 M100_User_Manual_v1.2__en.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
#### States *v.*Cromwell.

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed January 25th,*1887.)

PRACTICE — APPEAL — CORRECTING RETURN.

A motion to compel the appellant to correct the return to the court of appeals by adding thereto copies of certain documents should be made in the court below. The court of appeals has no jurisdiction.

*George Zabriskie,*for the motion; *Samuel L. Gross,*opposed.

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to compel the appellant to correct the return to this court by adding thereto copies of certain documents, and to serve copies of the return as so amended upon the respondent. A complete answer to the motion is that the documents are no part of the record in the court below, and that the record certified to this court is a correct copy of that record. If the documents should be a part of that record for any reason, we have no jurisdiction to make them a part thereof; but a motion for that purpose should be made to the court below.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

All concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6048** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHEUKMA KENYATA SANDERS, a/k/a Kuma , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00050

- RLV

- CH

- 13; 5:09

- cv 00135

- RLV )

Submitted : April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge , and KING and AGEE , Circu it Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Cheukma Kenyata Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, N orth Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cheukma Kenyata Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has
not m ade the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *

* We decline to consider Sanders’ claim, raised for the first time in this court, that the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, and counsel failed to object. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**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 DDi Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Mikel H. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.       /s/ MIKEL H. WILLIAMS     Mikel H. Williams    *President and Chief Executive Officer*  Date: May 9, 2007
REF ID:A488082 

lA\pproved for Release by NSA on 11-12-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§ 
REF ID:A488082 

• 

,. 

f I 

:; 

' 

--~~Jer~· 

i 

I 

f 

,~,~ . ~ 

f~ HA-~ ~/&G~
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JERREL BIRCH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 332 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2733 

To terminate the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund and transfer 

remaining amounts to the Treasury. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To terminate the United States Enrichment Corporation 

Fund and transfer remaining amounts to the Treasury. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Enrich5 ment Corporation Fund Termination and Transfer Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT 

7 CORPORATION FUND. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF FUND.—In this section, the term 

9 ‘‘Fund’’ means the United States Enrichment Corporation 

10 Fund established by section 1308 of the Atomic Energy 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2733 IS

1 Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 921, chapter 1073; 106 Stat. 2929) 

2 (repealed by section 3116(a)(1) of the Omnibus Consoli3 dated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public 

4 Law 104–134; 110 Stat. 1321–349)). 

5 (b) RESCISSION OF AMOUNTS.—All amounts in the 

6 Fund as of the date of enactment of this Act are re7 scinded. 

8 (c) TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS.—The Secretary of the 

9 Treasury shall transfer all amounts in the Fund to the 

10 general fund of the Treasury. 

11 (d) TERMINATION OF FUND.—The Fund shall termi12 nate on completion of the transfer under subsection (c). 

13 (e) DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS.—Beginning on the date 

14 of enactment of this Act, any amounts required to be de15 posited in the Fund under any other law shall be deposited 

16 in the general fund of the Treasury. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Order entered April 13, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00157-CV

CBIF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, COLUMBIA AIRPORT, LLC, AND STEVE FLORY,

Appellants

V.

TGI FRIDAY'S INC., LBD CORPORATION, TGIF/DFW PARTNER, LLC, TGIF/DFW 

MANAGER, LLC, TGIF/DFW TERMINAL A RESTAURANT, DOMAIN 

ENTERPRISES, INC., TGIF/DFW RESTAURANT JOINT VENTURE, LOUIS STURNS, 

NORMA ROBY, ERMA JOHNSON HADLEY, RSH CONCESSIONS, LLC, ET AL.,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-04730

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ April 7, 2016 second joint motion for extension of time to file 

reply briefs and ORDER the briefs be filed no later than April 27, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
# C_2015058EN.01000102.xml

| 18.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7485 — Swisscom/Sixt/Managed Mobility JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 58/02)

On 11 February 2015, 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 the German 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 32015M7485. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7485. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This Certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of NCO
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. To the best of his knowledge, the undersigned, Steven L. Winokur,
Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 Company.


         /s/  Steven L. Winokur, Chief Financial Officer
              ------------------------------------------
              Date: 3/13/03
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

t1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

153031 (22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153031

COA: 329268

Wayne CC: 11-004382-FC

MAURICE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

27, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00283-CV

In the Interest of A.T., a Child §

§

§

§

From the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CV13-1349)

December 1, 2016

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM