alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12




Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                    Six months ended
                                                                                        June 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                                             2001              2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>
    Income before provision for income taxes                               $        127.6    $         61.4
    Fixed charges                                                                   165.8             110.9
                                                                           ------------------------------------
    Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges             $        293.4    $        172.3
                                                                           ====================================

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                       $        164.0    $        109.1
    Preferred stock dividends                                                         1.8               1.8
                                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                           $        165.8    $        110.9
                                                                           ====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
    charges to fixed charges                                                       1.77              1.55
                                                                           ====================================
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12524]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-245-001]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 17, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 15, 1995, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch Gateway) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective May 
4, 1995:

Second Revised Sheet No. 3606

    Koch Gateway states that on May 5, 1995, the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation (OPR) issued a Letter Order in the above captioned 
proceeding. Pursuant to that Letter Order, Koch Gateway was directed to 
file within 10 days to correct pagination on Tariff Sheet No. 3606. 
Accordingly, Koch Gateway has revised the pagination to delete First 
Revised Sheet No. 3606, which has previously been approved by the 
Commission, and added Second Revised Sheet No. 3606.
    Koch Gateway also states that the tariff sheets are being mailed to 
all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 
of the Commission's Regulations. All such protests should be filed on 
or before May 24, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-12524 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Shannon FATTA, petitioner, v. M & M PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC.

No. 13-6251.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
Amendment No. 8 to Employee Stock Ownership Plan



 EXHIBIT 10 (ii)(8) 
  
 AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT TO 
 NORTHERN TRUST EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 
 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002)

  
 WHEREAS, The Northern Trust Company (the
“Company”) maintains the Northern Trust Employee Stock Ownership Plan, As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2002, (the “Plan”); and 
  

WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is now considered desirable; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the amending power reserved to the Company under Section 13.1 of the
Plan, and pursuant to the authority delegated to the undersigned officer by resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company dated November 20, 2001, Section 9.7(d) of the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2003, as follows:

  

	1.	To insert the following as the first sentence of Section 9.7(d): 

  
 “The Plan shall be administered in accordance with all applicable requirements of sections 401(a)(9), including the minimum distribution incidental
death benefit requirement of Code Section 401(a)(9)(G), and Treas. Reg. §§1.401(a)(9)-2 through 1.401(a)(9)-9.” 
  

	2.	To delete the phrase “within five years after the Member’s death” from Section 9.7(d)(2)(B) and to substitute the following therefor: 

  
 “no later than December 31 of the calendar year containing the fifth
anniversary of the Member’s death.” 
  

	3.	To delete the phrase “one year after the date of the Member’s death” from Section 9.7(d)(2)(C)(iii) and to substitute the following therefor:


  
 “the December 31 of the calendar year
following the calendar year in which the Member died.” 
  

	4.	To delete Section 9.7(d)(4) in its entirety and to renumber the current Section 9.7(d)(5) as new Section 9.7(d)(4). 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be
executed on its behalf this 22nd day of December, 2003, effective as of January 1, 2003. 
  

			
	THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY 
		
	By:	 	/s/     Martin J. Joyce, Jr.        
	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	Martin J. Joyce, Jr.
	 Title:
	 	Senior Vice President
Jesse L. YOUNGBLOOD, petitioner, v. CHICO PAROLE OUTPATIENT CLINIC, et al.

No. 12-10634.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Urban Barns Foods Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan Meikleham,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
15th day of December, 2009.


/s/ Dan Meikleham
-------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
Marshall Lee GORE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 13-6619, 13A315.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 01, 2013.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari *51to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0190

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LISA ROSE HUEY-MCLEOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until August11, 2021, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 6 2021

07/06/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0190
#### WALLACE V. COX.

*Creditor’s Bill.*

(Decided June 30, 1906.

Rehearing denied March 2, 1907.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Wilkinson. .

George Huddleston, for appellant.

M. M. Ullman, for appellee.

Reversed and rendered.

Opinion by

Dowdell, J.

Tyson, C. J., Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.
Michael Charles DeSUE, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 13-6843.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.
Reginald Darwin MORTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9673.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 10.2(a)**

**AMENDMENT NO. 1**

**TO**

**RUBICON TECHNOLOGY, INC.**

**2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN,**

**AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF**

**DECEMBER 8, 2009**

This First Amendment to the Rubicon Technology, Inc. 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of December 8, 2009(“Plan”) is made effective as of June 23, 2010. 

The Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars only:

The following is added as Section 4.4 of the Plan: 

**4.4 REPRICING**

(a) “Repricing” means, with respect to an Option or Stock Appreciation Right, any of the following: (i) the lowering of the exercise price after the Date of Grant; (ii) the taking ofany other action that is treated as a repricing under generally accepted accounting principles; or (iii) the cancellation of the Option or Stock Appreciation Right at a time when it exercise price (or, with respect to the Stock AppreciationRight, the Fair Market Value of the Shares covered by the Stock Appreciation Right on the Date of Grant) exceeds the Fair Market Value of the underlying Shares in exchange for any Award, unless the cancellation and exchange occurs in connection witha Change in Control. 

(b) The Committee is prohibited from Repricing any Option or Stock Appreciation Rightwithout the prior approval of the shareholders of the Company with respect to the proposed Repricing. 

**RESTRICTED STOCKFORFEITURE**

The following is added to Section 8.7 of the Plan: 

Restricted Stock for which forfeiture is conditioned solely on employment and the passage of time shall not fully vestless than three (3) years from the Date of Grant of the Restricted Stock. Restricted Stock for which forfeiture is conditioned on the achievement of Performance Factors or other performance conditions shall not be fully vested less than one(1) year from the Date of Grant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may, in its discretion and without limitation, provide in the Restricted Stock Agreement that vesting of the Restricted Stock will be accelerated to any degreedetermined by the Committee as a result of the Disability, death, retirement or involuntary termination of the Awardee or the occurrence of a Change of Control. 

**RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT VESTING**

The following is added to Section 9.3 of the Plan: 

Restricted Stock Units with vesting conditioned solely one employment and the passage of time shall not vest less thanthree (3) years from the Date of Grant of the Restricted Stock Units. Restricted Stock Units with vesting conditioned on the achievement of Performance Factors or other performance conditions shall not vest less than one (1) year from theDate of Grant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may, in its discretion and without limitation, provide in the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement that vesting of the Restricted Stock Units will accelerate to any degree determined by theCommittee as a result of the Disability, death, retirement or involuntary termination of the Awardee or the occurrence of a Change of Control.
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-SA4 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys report on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi    
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi        
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President
Matthew John KWONG, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

No. 12-9296.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<CASH>                                  30,916
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        60,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            310,143
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   4,023
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     4,056
<LOANS>                                953,566
<ALLOWANCE>                             (9,216)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,406,070
<DEPOSITS>                             895,430
<SHORT-TERM>                           221,193
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     47,085
<LONG-TERM>                             76,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                27,541
<OTHER-SE>                             137,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       1,406,070
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         64,210
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       14,250
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         5,118
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        83,578
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      25,954
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      38,999
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   44,579
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          30
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         37,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         22,553
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              22,553
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            15,843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            4.54
<LOANS-NON>                              1,793
<LOANS-PAST>                             1,465
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                          6,684
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                         9,209
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              617
<RECOVERIES>                               124
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                        9,216
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     9,216
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0

</TABLE>
Iomega 2003 Bonus Paln



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Iomega Compensation Committee Meeting 
  
 Exhibit A 
 May 20, 2003 
  
 Summary of 2003 IBP Plan Changes and Metrics

  
 Features remaining from 2002 IBP Plan 

 

	 	•	Company must be profitable as a whole in the plan period for any bonus or profit sharing to be paid out 

  

	 	•	Individuals’ targets not changing 

  

	 	•	Maximum payout still capped at 200% 

  
 Features changing in 2003 IBP plan 
  

					
	 Feature

	  	 2002 Plan

	  	 2003 Plan


	Plan Period	  	Two six-month periods	  	12 month fiscal year
	Operating Plan for Metrics	  	Board approved plan	  	Internal management stretch plan
	Plan Metrics Based on	  	Revenue, PBIT, Breakthrough Objectives	  	Cash Balance, EPS, BOD Discretion
	First payout occurs	  	80% payout upon achieving 80% of target	  	90% payout upon achieving 100% of target
	100% payout occurs	  	Upon achieving 100% of target	  	Must exceed target (level varies per metric)
	Accelerators	  	Same slopes & accelerators per metric	  	Differing slopes and accelerators per metric

  
 2003 IBP Participation and Metric
Weighting 
  

										
	 	  	Participants

	 
	 	  	Heid, Zwarenstein,
Kampfer, Aguirre

	 	 	All other Executives
and VP’s

	 	 	Directors

	 
	 	  	2003 IBP Metric Proposal

	 
	 BOD Discretion
	  	100	%	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 Year End Cash Balance
	  	 	 	 	70	%	 	70	%
	 Earnings Per Share
	  	 	 	 	30	%	 	30	%

  

 Page 1/2 








 2003 IBP Metric – Year End Cash Balance 
  

			
	 Year End Cash Balance – Weighting: 70% of IBP


	 % of Cash Goal Achieved

	 	 Bonus Payout


	 100%
	 	90%
	 103%
	 	100%
	 107%
	 	120%
	 111%
	 	150%
	 115%
	 	200%

  
 2003 IBP Metric – EPS

  

			
	 2003 EPS – Weighting: 30% of IBP


	 % of EPS Achieved

	 	 Bonus Payout


	 100%
	 	90%
	 110%
	 	100%
	 130%
	 	120%
	 140%
	 	150%
	 150%
	 	200%

  

 Page 2/2
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bruce
J. Wendel, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 (this report) of Abraxis BioScience, Inc.
(registrant);
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 26, 2010



/s/    BRUCE J.
WENDEL.Bruce J. WendelChief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

TONY TUCKER, )

 )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-1051-TLS

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Tony Tucker, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. In WCU # 13-04-0729, Tucker was found

guilty of unauthorized possession and destruction of state property. (ECF No. 7-2.) Among other

sanctions, he lost sixty days of earned time credits. (Id.) After Tucker filed this Petition, the

Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) final reviewing authority decided to vacate the guilty

finding and remand the case for a new hearing. (ECF No. 7-1.) 

Based on the IDOC’s action, the Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition as moot [ECF

No. 7]. As the Respondent points out, because the guilty finding has been vacated, there is at

present nothing for this Court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir.

2003) (prison disciplinary conviction can be challenged in a federal habeas proceeding only if it

lengthened the duration of the petitioner’s confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol.

Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy

must continue to exist at all stages of review, not simply on the date the action was initiated.”). 

Tucker filed two documents in opposition to the Motion. He argues that the Petition

should not be dismissed because he already endured certain sanctions as a result of the case.

(ECF No. 8 at 1.) He appears to be referring to the fact that he served time in disciplinary
segregation and temporarily lost phone privileges as a result of the guilty finding. (See ECF No.

7-2.) However, this is not a basis for keeping his habeas petition alive. Disciplinary segregation

and loss of privileges affect the “severity” rather than the “duration” of custody. Montgomery v.

Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2001). As the United States Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit has explained, “More restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in the

uncommon circumstance when it can be challenged at all.” Id.

Tucker also appears to argue that prison officials should not be permitted to try him again

on the same charge. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) To the extent he is trying to raise a double jeopardy

challenge, his argument is unavailing, because double jeopardy principles do not apply in the

prison disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed. If Tucker is dissatisfied with the results of the new

hearing, he is free to file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.

For the reasons set forth above, the Respondent’s Motion [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED,

and the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED on April 9, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2