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

I, Michael J. Clarke, Chief Financial Officer of
Chelsea Property Group, Inc. ("the Company"), pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

|1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,
2004 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 29th
day of July, 2004.

| | /s/ Michael J. Clarke
Michael J. Clarke
Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Chelsea Property Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Chelsea Property Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 12

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Years Ended December 31,
(in thousands)                                      2001        2000        1999        1998        1997
                                                  --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
<S>                                               <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Fixed Charges:
      Interest Expense (including
           amortization of deferred debt cost)    $ 30,523    $ 39,429    $ 29,188    $ 18,026    $  9,525
      Interest Capitalized                          13,606       9,444       7,565       6,401       4,650
                                                  --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
                Total Fixed Charges               $ 44,129    $ 48,873    $ 36,753    $ 24,427    $ 14,175
                                                  ========    ========    ========    ========    ========
Earnings:
      Net income before net gain (loss) on real
           estate sales and extraordinary items
           and cumulative effect of change in
           accounting principle                   $(27,559)   $  8,785    $ 34,424    $ 40,301    $ 25,841
      Fixed Charges                                 44,129      48,873      36,753      24,427      14,175
      Capitalized Interest                         (13,606)     (9,444)     (7,565)     (6,401)     (4,650)
                                                  --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
                Total Earnings                    $  2,964    $ 48,214    $ 63,612    $ 58,327    $ 35,366
                                                  ========    ========    ========    ========    ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                    0.07(1)     0.99        1.73        2.39        2.49
</TABLE>
-------
(1) Due to settlement expense of $45,788 in 2001, earnings fall short of a
    one to one coverage of fixed charges by $41,165.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
QLogic Corporation:
 
     The audits referred to in our report dated May 9, 1997 included the related
financial statement schedule as of March 30, 1997 and for each of the years in
the three-year period ended March 30, 1997. This financial statement schedule is
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our
opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of our reports included herein.
 
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
 
June 25, 1997
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2201

To amend the independent counsel provisions of title 28, United States

Code, to authorize the appointment of an independent counsel when

the Attorney General determines that Department of Justice employees

have engaged in certain conduct.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the independent counsel provisions of title 28,

United States Code, to authorize the appointment of

an independent counsel when the Attorney General determines that Department of Justice employees have engaged in certain conduct.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT

4 OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

5 Section 592(c) of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (A),

7 by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
2

HR 2201 IH

1 inserting ‘‘; or’’, and by adding after subparagraph (B)

2 the following:

3 ‘‘(C) the Attorney General, upon completion of

4 a preliminary examination under this chapter, deter5 mines that there are reasonable grounds to believe

6 that—

7 ‘‘(i) employees of the Department of Jus8 tice have engaged in misconduct, criminal activ9 ity, corruption, or fraud, and

10 ‘‘(ii) further investigation is warranted.’’.

Æ
Alvin WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Justin BODER, et al.

No. 19-7019

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/03/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       41,861
COMMITMENTS
   1,859      873        0   36,301   38,983   38,160   39,856    3,701    2,005

CHANGES FROM 12/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -903)
    -237      -35        0   -1,045     -710   -1,282     -745      379     -158

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     4.4      2.1      0.0     86.7     93.1     91.2     95.2      8.8      4.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       50)
       4        2        0       26       31       30       33
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/03/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       66,437
COMMITMENTS
   5,353   21,250      240   55,298   42,990   60,891   64,480    5,546    1,957

CHANGES FROM 12/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,617)
     488   -1,525      -28    2,306    3,929    2,766    2,376     -149      241

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.1     32.0      0.4     83.2     64.7     91.7     97.1      8.3      2.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       69)
       8        8        1       35       26       43       35
```

----

Updated January 6, 2012
Christopher SCOTT, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-6785.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Eastern District of Texas

NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC

2:23-cv-00385

CINEMARK USA, INC.

CINEMARK USA, INC. 

c/o 

Corporation Service Company d/b/a +8 

211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620 

Austin, Texas 78701

Jonathan L. Hardt 

ROZIER HARDT MCDONOUGH PLLC, 

712 W. 14th Street, Suite C 

Austin, Texas 78701

8/29/23

Case 2:23-cv-00385-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 109
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:23-cv-00385 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00385-JRG-RSP Document 6 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 110
Exhibit 99.1



Report of Independent Auditors

The Board of Control of 
Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P.
We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P. as of December 31, 2002 and the related statements of operations, changes in partners' deficit and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. The financial statements of Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2001, were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and whose report dated January 23, 2002 (except with respect to the matter discussed in Note 7, as to which the date was February 7, 2002), expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements. 
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. 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 the 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 2002 financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P. at December 31, 2002, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Partnership will continue as a going concern. As more fully described in Note 1, the Partnership has incurred recurring operating losses, has a working capital deficiency, a partners' capital deficit and has not made required debt service payments on a timely basis.  In addition, the Partnership's projections for 2003 reflect a continued inability to make certain debt payments under its Senior Debt Agreement when due. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Partnership's ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty./s/   Ernst & Young LLP
February 24, 2003
McLean, Virginia
Timothy Joseph McGHEE, petitioner, v. Ron DAVIS, Warden.

No. 18-6320.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 433 

Designating April 2012 as ‘‘National Child Abuse Prevention Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24 (legislative day, APRIL 23), 2012 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. KERRY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 2012 as ‘‘National Child Abuse Prevention 

Month’’. 

Whereas in 2010, approximately 695,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect; 

Whereas in 2010, more than 1,530 children died as a result 

of abuse or neglect; 

Whereas in 2010, an estimated 79.4 percent of the children 

who died due to abuse or neglect were under the age of 

4; 

Whereas in 2010, of the children under the age of 4 who died 

due to abuse or neglect, 47.7 percent were under the age 

of 1; 

Whereas abused or neglected children have a higher risk for 

developing health problems in adulthood, including alcoVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:44 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR433.ATS SR433

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 433 ATS 

holism, depression, drug abuse, eating disorders, obesity, 

suicide, and certain chronic diseases; 

Whereas a National Institute of Justice study indicated that 

abused or neglected children— 

(1) are 11 times more likely to be arrested for criminal behavior as juveniles; and 

(2) are 2.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent and criminal behavior as adults; 

Whereas an estimated one-third of abused or neglected children grow up to abuse or neglect their own children; 

Whereas providing community-based services to families impacted by child abuse or neglect may be far less costly 

than— 

(1) the emotional and physical damage inflicted on 

children who have been abused or neglected; 

(2) providing other services to abused or neglected 

children, including child protective, law enforcement, 

court, foster care, or health care services; or 

(3) providing treatment to adults recovering from 

child abuse; and 

Whereas child abuse and neglect have long-term economic 

and societal costs: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 2012 as ‘‘National Child 

3 Abuse Prevention Month’’; 

4 (2) recognizes and applauds the national and 

5 community organizations that work to promote 

6 awareness about child abuse and neglect, including 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 433 ATS 

1 by identifying risk factors and developing prevention 

2 strategies; 

3 (3) supports the proclamation issued by Presi4 dent Obama declaring April 2012 to be ‘‘National 

5 Child Abuse Prevention Month’’; and 

6 (4) should increase public awareness of preven7 tion programs relating to child abuse and neglect, 

8 and continue to work with States to reduce the inci9 dence of child abuse and neglect in the United 

10 States. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7057

JAMES ANTHONY MAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. NINA WARD; NURSE G. MULLEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-7071

JAMES ANTHONY MAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCOTT BRAIN; JAMES R. CHELLIS; JANE DOE; DR. PHILLIP 

PERKINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03065-FL; 5:11-ct-03088-FL)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Anthony May, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

James Anthony May appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. May v. Ward, No. 5:11-ct-03065-FL (E.D.N.C. 

June 8, 2012); May v. Brain, No. 5:11-ct-03088-FL (E.D.N.C. June 

8, 2012). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                           2,745
<SECURITIES>                                       874
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (132)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,308
<PP&E>                                           4,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,295
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               71
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,671
<SALES>                                          4,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,450
<CGS>                                            1,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (50)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     16
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 16
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        16
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON 

WIRELESS, and VERIZON CORPORATE 

SERVICES GROUP, INC., 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00352 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

 Pursuant to Eastern District of Texas Local Rule 5(a)(7)(C), Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Verizon Corporate 

Services Group, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) move to file Verizon’s Answer under seal. 

There is good cause for this document to be filed under seal. There is currently no 

Protective Order entered in this matter, and the Answer contains highly sensitive information 

relating to the terms of a licensing and development agreement between the parties. Accordingly, 

to preserve the confidentiality of that information, Verizon respectfully requests that the Answer 

be filed under seal. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 31 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 511
DATED: October 10, 2023 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

/s/ Katherine Q. Dominguez 

 

Katherine Q. Dominguez (Lead Attorney) 

kdominguez@gibsondunn.com 

Josh A. Krevitt 

jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com 

Brian Rosenthal 

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10166-0193 

Telephone: (212) 351-4000 

Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 

Andrew Robb 

arobb@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

310 University Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94301 

Telephone: (650) 849-5300 

Deron R. Dacus 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, Texas 75701 

Phone: (903) 705-1117 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 31 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 512
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on October 10, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all 

registered participants. 

 /s/ Katherine Q. Dominguez 

 Katherine Q. Dominguez

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

 On October 10, 2023, counsel for Verizon conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Headwater 

Research LLC. Counsel for Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC indicated that it does not oppose 

this motion. 

/s/ Katherine Q. Dominguez 

 Katherine Q. Dominguez 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 31 Filed 10/10/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 513
Bahman KHODAYARI, Petitioner, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 19-6944

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.