alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                   Exhibit 12

                         Continental Global Group, Inc.
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        (In thousands, except for ratios)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Years ended December 31
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1997              1996        1995       1994       1993

<S>                                              <C>               <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
Computation of Earnings:
Income before extraordinary item and
   foreign income taxes                           8,181             8,940      11,785      3,616      3,731
Add:
   Interest expense                              11,979  (1)        2,889       2,506      1,493      1,214
   Amortization of deferred financing costs
                                                      -                27          16          8          8
   Portion of rent expense representative
     of an interest factor                          523               407         455        310        268
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings                                         20,683            12,263      14,762      5,427      5,221
                                              ==============================================================

Computation of Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense                              11,979             2,889       2,506      1,493      1,214
   Amortization of deferred financing costs
                                                      -                27          16          8          8
   Portion of rent expense representative
     of an interest factor                          523               407         455        310        268
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------

Fixed Charges                                    12,502             3,323       2,977      1,811      1,490
                                              ==============================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 1.65              3.69        4.96       3.00       3.50
                                              ==============================================================

<FN>
 (1)      Amortization of deferred financing costs of $390 is included in 1997
          interest expense.
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LEOPOLDO CERDA, #1141406, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-2037-P

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. Plaintiff/Petitioner filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review

of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. 

The objections are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

SO ORDERED this 25 day of May 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02037-P Document 16 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 83
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018322DE.01008501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.12.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 322/85 |

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2017/625 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 15. März 2017 über amtliche Kontrollen und andere amtliche Tätigkeiten zur Gewährleistung der Anwendung des Lebens- und Futtermittelrechts und der Vorschriften über Tiergesundheit und Tierschutz, Pflanzengesundheit und Pflanzenschutzmittel, zur Änderung der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 999/2001, (EG) Nr. 396/2005, (EG) Nr. 1069/2009, (EG) Nr. 1107/2009, (EU) Nr. 1151/2012, (EU) Nr. 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 und (EU) 2016/2031 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates, der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 1/2005 und (EG) Nr. 1099/2009 des Rates sowie der Richtlinien 98/58/EG, 1999/74/EG, 2007/43/EG, 2008/119/EG und 2008/120/EG des Rates und zur Aufhebung der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 854/2004 und (EG) Nr. 882/2004 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates, der Richtlinien 89/608/EWG, 89/662/EWG, 90/425/EWG, 91/496/EEG, 96/23/EG, 96/93/EG und 97/78/EG des Rates und des Beschlusses 92/438/EWG des Rates (Verordnung über amtliche Kontrollen)

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 95 vom 7. April 2017](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2017_095_R_TOC)
)

Im gesamten Text und in der Entsprechungstabelle wird der Begriff „UnterAbsatz“ durch den Begriff „Unterabsatz“ und der Begriff „UnterAbsätze“ durch den Begriff „Unterabsätze“ ersetzt.

Seite 21, Artikel 3 Nummer 38:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „38. | ‚Grenzkontrollstelle‘ einen Ort mit den dazu gehörenden Einrichtungen, der von einem Mitgliedstaat benannt wird und an dem die amtlichen Kontrollen gemäß Artikel 45 Absatz 1 stattfinden;“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „38. | 'Grenzkontrollstelle' einen Ort mit den dazu gehörenden Einrichtungen, der von einem Mitgliedstaat benannt wird und an dem die amtlichen Kontrollen gemäß Artikel 47 Absatz 1 stattfinden;“. |

Seite 23, Artikel 4 Absatz 3 Satz 2:

Anstatt:

„In diesen Fällen teilen sie jeder dieser Behörden eine individuelle KennNummer zu.“

muss es heißen:

„In diesen Fällen teilen sie jeder dieser Behörden eine individuelle Kennnummer zu.“

Seite 23, Artikel 5 Absatz 1:

Anstatt:

„(1)   Die zuständigen Behörden und die Kontrollbehörden für ökologische/biologische Produktion verfüge über“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Die zuständigen Behörden und die Kontrollbehörden für ökologische/biologische Produktion verfügen über“.

Seite 41, Artikel 28 Absatz 2:

Anstatt:

„(2)   ... so teilt sie jeder beauftragten Stelle eine KennNummer zu ...“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   ... so teilt sie jeder beauftragten Stelle eine Kennnummer zu, ...“

Seite 45, Artikel 36 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „b) | von dem Recht auf ein zweites Sachverständigengutachten gemäß Artikel 34 Absatz 1 Gebrauch machen können, wenn ...“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „b) | von dem Recht auf ein zweites Sachverständigengutachten gemäß Artikel 35 Absatz 1 Gebrauch machen können, wenn ...“ |

---
Antwan JORDAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2805

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Keith A. NOLL, DOC #098136, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3105

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC21-253

____________

IN RE: AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.020.

September 2, 2021

PER CURIAM.

Before the Court is the report of The Florida Bar’s Appellate 

Court Rules Committee (Committee) proposing an amendment to 

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020 (Definitions). See Fla. R. 

Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(1). We have jurisdiction. See

art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee proposes amending rule 9.020 to include

motions filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.535 

(Remittitur and Additur) in the list of motions that toll rendition of 

final orders.

The Committee’s proposal was approved by the Board of 

Governors of The Florida Bar by a vote of 39-1. The proposed 
- 2 -

amendment was published by both the Committee and the Court. 

No comments were received following either publication.

Having considered the proposed amendment, the Court hereby 

amends Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020 as proposed by 

the Committee. In subdivision (h)(1)(A), the words “, remittitur, or 

additur” are added after “motion for new trial” to clarify that timely, 

authorized motions for remittitur or additur toll rendition.

Accordingly, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are 

amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language 

is indicated by underscoring. The amendments shall become 

effective on October 1, 2021, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, 

COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT.

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

Laura Anne Triplett Roe, Chair, Honorable Stephanie Williams Ray, 

Past Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Tallahassee, Florida, 

Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Staff 

Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner
- 3 -

Appendix

RULE 9.020. DEFINITIONS

The following terms have the meanings shown as used in 

these rules:

(a)-(g) [NO CHANGE]

(h) Rendition of an Order. An order is rendered when a 

signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.

(1) Motions Tolling Rendition. The following motions, 

if authorized and timely filed, toll rendition unless another 

applicable rule of procedure specifically provides to the contrary:

(A) motion for new trial, remittitur, or additur;

(B) – (L) [NO CHANGE]

(2) [NO CHANGE]

(i)-(l) [NO CHANGE]

Committee Notes

[NO CHANGE]

Court Commentary

[NO CHANGE]
EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 MediaBay,
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. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below, 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/ Hakan Lindskog
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer                                 Date: April 15, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors
I.R.S.C., Inc.

         We have audited the consolidated statements of income, stockholders'
equity and cash flows of I.R.S.C., Inc. and subsidiaries ("IRSC") for the year
ended December 31, 1998 (not presented separately herein). These consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of IRSC's management. Our
responsibility is to express as opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.

         We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standard generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

         In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash
flows of IRSC for the year ended December 31, 1998, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


                                         /s/ Corbin & Wertz

Irvine, California
August 12, 1999
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTIAN WELLISCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION 

ASSISTANCE AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00213-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Re: ECF 55]

On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff Christian Wellisch filed a motion for leave to file a second 

motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for a stay and leave to file a motion for certification of 

interlocutory appeal. Mot., ECF 55. Wellisch seeks reconsideration of the Court’s June 2, 2017 

order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, and argues that the Court failed to consider 

dispositive legal arguments and material facts that were presented to the Court. Id. at 1. 

Like Wellisch’s first motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the instant 

motion appears to be an attempt to relitigate issues raised in Captain Wellisch’s opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, Wellisch again raises concerns about Defendant 

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (“PHEAA”)’s ability to litigate this matter. 

See id. at 3–5. In addition, Wellisch laments the fact that remand of his MIL 010 petition did not 

provide him all the relief he desires—he argues that has been deprived of his right to invoke the 

special procedural rules provided for in Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 409.3. Id. at 2, 4–5. 

As to the first issue, the Court DENIES Wellisch’s motion for leave as a second motion for 

reconsideration is not the proper procedural ground upon which to seek review of issues already 

litigated and decided by the Court. The Court also DENIES Wellisch’s motion as to his 

arguments regarding the rights delineated under Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 409.3. First, Wellisch 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cites no authority to support this Court taking any action to remedy his alleged deprivations. 

Second, the Court recognized the potential procedural issues posed by allowing the MIL 010 

petition to remain in federal court, and therefore severed it from the remainder of Wellisch’s 

claims, which are properly in federal court. See ECF 40. Having provided the Court with no 

grounds upon which it could grant Wellisch the relief he seeks, the Court DENIES his motion.

The Court also DENIES Wellisch’s motion for leave to file a motion for certification of 

interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff himself has conceded that he has not provided the Court with any 

basis to grant this request. See Mot. at 2. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge
# L_2018078EN.01001501.xml

| 21.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 78/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 78/15

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2018/463

of 19 March 2018

on the appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1), and in particular Article 56(6) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the approval by the European Parliament (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | On 20 December 2017 the Commission, after hearing the Single Resolution Board (‘the Board’), in its plenary session, adopted a shortlist of candidates for the position of a member of the Board and provided it to the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 20 December 2017 the Commission, after hearing the Single Resolution Board (‘the Board’), in its plenary session, adopted a shortlist of candidates for the position of a member of the Board and provided it to the European Parliament.

| (2) | The Council was informed of the shortlist on the same day. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council was informed of the shortlist on the same day.

| (3) | Pursuant to Article 56(5) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, the term of office of full time members of the Board is 5 years. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Pursuant to Article 56(5) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, the term of office of full time members of the Board is 5 years.

| (4) | On 14 February 2018, the Commission adopted a proposal for the appointment of Boštjan JAZBEC as a member of the Board and submitted it to the European Parliament for approval, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 14 February 2018, the Commission adopted a proposal for the appointment of Boštjan JAZBEC as a member of the Board and submitted it to the European Parliament for approval,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Boštjan JAZBEC is hereby appointed as a full-time member of the Single Resolution Board for a term of office of 5 years as from the entry into force of this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2018.

For the Council

The President

R. PORODZANOV

---

(1)  
  OJ L 225, 30.7.2014, p. 1.

1

(2)  Approval of 1 March 2018.

2

---
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





Date: 
August 13, 2010


/s/
      Michael J. MauceliMichael
      J. MauceliManager
      and Member of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,GP,
      LLC, the manager of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,L.P.,
      the Managing General Partner of thePartnership(Principal
      Executive Officer)





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Partnership and will
be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NORMAN MICHAEL VEGA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 701 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00798]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Date of required notice: January 15, 2025.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 3, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1239 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1039, K2025-1038.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00798 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Donaldson, Richard - 08/15/2018

Page 9

9 :25 Did you have direct responsibility for

10 :1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 developing any licensing programs or strategies

3 regarding cellular wireless patents?

4 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

5 A No, I did not.

Federal Trade Commission vs. Qualcomm Incorporated

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

Richard Donaldson (8/15/2018)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1370-1 Filed 01/19/19 Page 1 of 1
# L_2018155EN.01003501.xml

| 19.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 155/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 155/35

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/321 of 2 March 2018 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/224 setting out the technical and operational specifications allowing the commercial service offered by the system established under the Galileo programme to fulfil the function referred to in Article 2(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 62 of 5 March 2018
  )

Throughout the document, including in the amendments to the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/224:

for:

‘precision’,

read:

‘accuracy’.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 4 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 4

            Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2021

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to 
                        lie over, under the rule

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the daily meeting of the Senate be 12:01 p.m. unless 
otherwise ordered.
                                 <all>
```
Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3452

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.