alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 7.3



MTR Corporation Limited



Computation of

Ratio of Earnings to
Fixed Charges

Based on Hong Kong GAAP

(Expressed in millions of HK$)



|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----- |  | ----- |  | ----- |  | -----
|                                                                  |  | Year ended December 31
|                                                                  |  | 2000                   |  | 2001  |  | 2002  |  | 2003  |  | 2004 
|Profit before tax                                                 |  | 4,055                  |  | 4,278 |  | 4,213 |  | 5,198 |  | 5,196
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Fixed Charges:                                                    |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Interest expenses                                                 |  | 1,942                  |  | 1,870 |  | 1,748 |  | 1,636 |  | 1,470
|Amortization of debt discount or deferred debt costs              |  | 46                     |  | 53    |  | 23    |  | 24    |  | 32   
|Representative portion of interest in operating lease expenses(1) |  | 6                      |  | 5     |  | 4     |  | 4     |  | 3    
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Total fixed charges (B)                                           |  | 1,994                  |  | 1,928 |  | 1,775 |  | 1,664 |  | 1,505
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       | 
|Less: fixed charges capitalized                                   |  | 797                    |  | 1,029 |  | 621   |  | 104   |  | 48   
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|                                                                  |  | 1,197                  |  | 899   |  | 1,154 |  | 1,560 |  | 1,457
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Earnings before taxes and fixed charges (A)                       |  | 5,252                  |  | 5,177 |  | 5,367 |  | 6,758 |  | 6,653
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (A)/(B)                        |  | 2.63                   |  | 2.69  |  | 3.02  |  | 4.06  |  | 4.42 
|                                                                  |  |                        |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      

---

|(1) | The balance represented one third of operating lease expenses of the Group.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT95-11-002]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Refund 
Report

May 31, 2001.

    Take notice that on May 18, 2001, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), tendered for filing its report of activities regarding 
collection of Kansas ad valorem taxes. The report covers refund 
obligations attributable to tax bills rendered to Williams after June 
28, 1988 only.
    Williams states that pursuant to the August 7, 2000 Settlement 
Agreement and subsequent Order Granting Clarification, Williams will 
make its annual refund report regarding collections under Docket No. 
RP98-52 on May 31, 2001.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all parties 
included on the official service list maintained by the Secretary in 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations (18 CFR 385.211). All such protests 
must be filed on or before June 8, 2001. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the 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 in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be 
filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14196 Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Zep Inc. (the Corporation) for the quarter ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, 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
Corporation.



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                  
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                                              
|Mark R. Bachmann Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer July 2, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zep Inc. and will be
retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Page 24 of 24
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(h)

Key Bank USA, National Association       JPMorgan Chase Bank,
127 Public Square                          formally known as The Chase Manhattan
Bank Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1306            as Indenture Trustee
                                         4 New York Plaza, 6th Floor
                                         New York, New York 10004-2477

JPMorgan Chase Bank                      MBIA Insurance Corporation
  formally known as Bank One, National     as Securities Insurer
  Association                            113 King Street
  as Eligible Lender Trustee             Armonk, New York 10504
227 West Monroe, 26th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                      FOR KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2001-A

We have examined management's assertion, included in its representation letter
dated March 2, 2004 that Key Bank USA, National Association (KBUSA), a wholly
owned subsidiary of KeyCorp, complied with sections 4.04, 4.08(a), 4.08(b),
4.08(c), 5.05, 5.06, 5.07 and 5.08 of the KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2001-A Sale
and Servicing Agreement and sections 1.(a)(xx), 1.(b)(iii), 2 and 3 of the
KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2001-A Administration Agreement (collectively, the
"Agreements") as of December 31, 2003 and for the year then ended. Management is
responsible for KBUSA's compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about KBUSA's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about KBUSA's
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances, except that in accordance with
Section 5.05 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement, our examination assumed the
accuracy of reports prepared by KBUSA's student loan processor. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on KBUSA's compliance with the specified
requirements.

In our opinion, assuming the accuracy of reports prepared by KBUSA's student
loan processor, management's assertion that KBUSA complied with the
aforementioned requirements as of December 31, 2003 and for the year then ended
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of KBUSA, JPMorgan
Chase Bank, and MBIA Insurance Corporation and is not intended to be and should
not be used by anyone other than for these specified parties.

                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 2, 2004
Cleveland, Ohio
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

109 

KA 09-02645 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

MICHAEL B. BARKSDALE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Brian M.

McCarthy, J.), rendered December 4, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree

and criminal mischief in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                 AMENDMENT OF THE

                           AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF

                            WESTERN STAFF SERVICES, INC.


     By unanimous written consent of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
dated as of July 16, 1998, and by majority vote of the shareholders of the
corporation at a special meeting held August 13, 1998, the name of the
Corporation was changed to Westaff, Inc., effective September 24, 1998.

     Also by unanimous written consent of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation dated as of July 16, 1998, the officers of the Corporation were
authorized and directed to execute all instruments, documents, agreements and
certificates and to take all such other actions deemed necessary, advisable, or
property to carry out the purposes and intent of the resolutions regarding the
corporation name change.

     Therefore, the Amended And Restated Bylaws of the Corporation are further
amended to be titled:

                            "AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
                                        OF
                                   WESTAFF, INC.,
                             (a Delaware corporation)"



                                         WESTAFF, INC.


                                         By: /s/ Robin A. Herman
                                             --------------------------
                                             Robin A. Herman, Secretary
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 884 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 

on the capital loss carryovers of individuals to $20,000. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the limitation on the capital loss carryovers of individuals 

to $20,000. 

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 ‘‘Middle Class Investor 

5 Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CAPITAL LOSS CARRYOVERS OF IN7 DIVIDUALS INCREASED TO $20,000. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 1211(b) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limita10 tion on capital losses) is amended to read as follows: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 884 IH

1 ‘‘(1) $20,000 ($10,000 in the case of a married 

2 individual filing a separate return), or’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to capital losses arising in taxable 

5 years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Agrifina C. BARO, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7064.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 6, 2006.

Agrifina C. Baro, pro se.

Brian S. Smith, Steven J. Gillingham, David M. Cohen, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for RespondenWAppel-lee.

Before LINN and PROST, Circuit Judges, and SARIS, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Patti B. Saris, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Agrifina C. Baro appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) which denied service connection for her husband’s death and denied entitlement to accrued benefits. *Baro v. Nicholson,*No. 04-1260, 20 Vet.App. 386, 2005 WL 3312595 (Vet.App. Dec. 1, 2005). We *dismiss*for lack of jurisdiction.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from deci*975sions of the Veterans Court. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). This court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2000).

Ms. Baro’s appeal to this court can be best construed as relying on two theories. The first is that the Veterans Court failed to find that her husband’s death was service connected. Because the determination of whether an injury is service connected is a factual determination, it is outside the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, we decline to address Ms. Baro’s arguments with respect to that issue.

Accordingly Ms. Baro’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

No costs.

Secondly, Ms. Baro’s appeal can be read to argue that the Veterans Court erred by failing to apply 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). This statute requires that

> [t]he Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2000). Ms. Baro’s argument may either be that the Veterans Court did not consider all the evidence before it, or, having found that the evidence for and against her claim was relatively balanced, the court should have found in her favor. In either case, this argument constitutes a challenge to the application of law to the facts of this case. Such an issue is outside of this court’s jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2000).
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rubicon Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raja M. Parvez, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, William F. Weissman, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Raja M. Parvez                                  
|                        |  |     |  | Raja M. Parvez President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 13, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ William F. Weissman                             
|                        |  |     |  | William F. Weissman Chief Financial
Officer         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7064
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL C. SHAECHTER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-188-H, CR-93-301-H, CA-94-3536-H) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Brian William Shaughnessy, SHAUGHNESSY, BOROWSKI & GAGNER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Shaechter , Nos. CR-93-188-H; CR-93-301-H; CA-94- 3536-H (D. Md. June 14, 1995; June 30, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **2** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **The Board of Trade of          the City of Chicago, Inc. (CBOT); Board of Trade of Kansas          City;** |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **Chicago Mercantile          Exchange, Inc. (CME); Commodity Exchange, Inc; Minneapolis          Grain** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **Exchange (MGE); New          York Board of Trade; New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **(NYME); Philadelphia          Board of Trade (PBT)** |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 05/26/2004 | FR PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 11 | PDF SIZE: | 184 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/c |
|-------|------------|----------|-----|--------|----|-----------|--------|-----------|---------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **Futures Industry          Association (FIA)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 05/18/2004 | FR PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 | PDF SIZE: | 17 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/c |
|-------|------------|----------|-----|--------|---|-----------|-------|-----------|---------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

FirstPreviousNextLast
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Jasso BOTELLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40712

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Guillermo Ruben Garcia, Garcia & Garcia, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWTCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Jasso Botello has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Jasso Botello has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw pursuant to *Anders*is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Counsel’s motion for leave, to withdraw due to his possible appointment as a United States Magistrate Judge is DENIED as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM








We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-70876, 333-63620 and 333-37808) and S-8 (No. 333-63618, 33-90396,
333-10167, 333-89223, 333-52136, 333-37832 and 333-105862) of Micrel,
Incorporated of our report dated February 25, 2009 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, the financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
10-K.











/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Jose,
California


February
25, 2009
#### Legacy Development, Appellant, v Victor Liberatore et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided May 6, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.