alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12
 EXHIBIT 12   STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO
OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
 LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST / LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(Amounts in thousands except ratio amounts)
 Year ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings before fixed charges:Income before allocation of minority interest
and income from investments in unconsolidated
subsidiaries (1)
    
    $
    152,880
    
    
    $
    151,148
    
    
    $
    163,951
    
    
    $
    216,849
    
    
    $
    141,472Add: Interest expense
    
    
    151,132
    
    
    
    122,967
    
    
    
    105,585
    
    
    
    104,979
    
    
    
    93,042Depreciation expense on capd interest
    
    
    1,245
    
    
    
    5,393
    
    
    
    4,437
    
    
    
    3,829
    
    
    
    3,442Amortization of deferred
financing costs
    
    
    4,543
    
    
    
    4,091
    
    
    
    3,897
    
    
    
    3,971
    
    
    
    3,483Earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    309,800
    
    
    $
    283,599
    
    
    $
    277,870
    
    
    $
    329,628
    
    
    $
    241,439Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    151,132
    
    
    $
    122,967
    
    
    $
    105,585
    
    
    $
    104,979
    
    
    $
    93,042Amortization of deferred financing charges
    
    
    4,543
    
    
    
    4,091
    
    
    
    3,897
    
    
    
    3,971
    
    
    
    3,483Capitalized interest
    
    
    19,958
    
    
    
    45,697
    
    
    
    30,837
    
    
    
    17,748
    
    
    
    13,242Fixed charges
    
    
    175,633
    
    
    
    172,755
    
    
    
    140,319
    
    
    
    126,698
    
    
    
    109,767Preferred share distributions
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Preferred unit distributions
    
    
    21,012
    
    
    
    17,126
    
    
    
    13,691
    
    
    
    12,095
    
    
    
    11,844Combined fixed charges
    
    $
    196,645
    
    
    $
    189,881
    
    
    $
    154,010
    
    
    $
    138,793
    
    
    $
    121,611Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.76
    
    
    
    1.64
    
    
    
    1.98
    
    
    
    2.60
    
    
    
    2.20Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
    
    
    1.58
    
    
    
    1.49
    
    
    
    1.80
    
    
    
    2.37
    
    
    
    1.99
 
 (1)
    
    Amounts for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 have been reclassified to present properties that have been sold
during 2008. As a result, operations have been reclassified to discontinued operations from continuing operations for all periods presented.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERNAN ISMAEL DELGADO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 03-74442

Agency No. A078-461-226

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel

opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

FILED

SEP 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00323-CV

A.L. DAWSEY, Individually 

and A.L. Dawsey d/b/a Serpentine Plug Drilling Joint Venture

 and Tech Resources, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

REACH COMPLETION SERVICES, L.L.C.; 

Alan G. Mikell; Paul A. Ross, III; Gerald Osburn; and Ralph Sheldon,

Appellees 

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-01-11195-ZCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2008

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On August 13, 2008, appellees filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the order

appealed from is interlocutory. Appellants responded, asking this court to determine whether the

judgment is final. The summary judgment order signed by the trial court on April 10, 2008 does not

dispose of the claims filed by CMT Well Completions, Inc. d/b/a Reach Completion Services, Inc.
04-08-00323-CV

-2-

against A.L. Dawsey d/b/a Serpentine Plug Drilling Joint Venture and Tech Resources. The clerk’s

record on appeal does not contain a severance order. Because the judgment is interlocutory,

appellees’ motion to dismissis granted and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

PER CURIAM
STATE v. Tyrone BARNES

84P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2018

Tyrone Barnes, For Barnes, Tyrone.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for the State.

*236The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of March 2018 by Defendant to Compel:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2018."
SILVER, et al. v. The HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

338A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2017

Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, Eileen O'Connor, Attorney at Law, Allen Buansi, Attorney at Law, for Silver, LaTonya, et al.

Brent Ducharme, Attorney at Law.

Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Glynn Rollins, Attorney at Law, Roanoke Rpds, for The Halifax County Board Of Commissioners.

K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project, Peggy Nicholson, Attorney at Law, Jennifer Story, Attorney at Law, Jane Wettach, Attorney at Law, Celia Pistolis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Aisha Oni Forte, Attorney at Law, for Children's Law Clinic at Duke Law School, et al.

Seth Ascher

George Hausen, Jr., Legal Aid.

Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research.

S. Luke Largess, Attorney at Law, Cheyenne Chambers, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of December 2017 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of December 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
## NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00 384

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

LANCE TAYLOR

, A ppellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On a ppeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justice s Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant' s s eventh motion for extension of time

to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on April 1 7 , 2019 , and this

Court has previously granted appellant six extensions ; however, current counsel, the

H onorable Diamond DeLeon, has only been granted one extension for the filing of

appellant’s brief in this cause. On July 21, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant2 the time to file a brief was extended to October 12, 2021 and in all caps explained the

Court will not grant any further extensions absent new and exigent circumstances.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's most recent motion

for extension of time to file the brief and the extensions prev iously granted in this cause,

is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's seventh motion for extension of

time to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor

upon the delay caused by counsel's fa ilure to have filed a brief in this matter.

Appellant's seventh motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby

GRANTED , and the Honorable Diamond DeLeon , counsel for appellant, is hereby

ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before December 13,

2021

. Further motions for extension of time absent exigent circumstances will not be

favorably entertained by the Court.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

29th day of October , 2021.
Interian Decision #1858 

MATTER or SIM 

In VISA PETITION Proceedings 

A-13008502 

Decided by Regional 0 ommission November 6,1962 

The petitioner and spouse have not established that they will properly care for 

the beneficiary-child, as defined in section 101(b) (1) (F), pursuant to section 

205(b), Immigration and Nationality. Act, as amended, since they have 2 

minor daughters or their own, the petitioner has no steady employment, biS 

wife is employed as night superintendent at a hospital working from 11:00 

PM to 7:00 AM, and petitioner, who was discharged from the United States 

Army in 1044 under other than honorable conditions, has a long record of 

arrests and convictions, the host of which was in 1081. 

This case is on certification from the District Director, Seattle, 

Washington, who denied the petition on the ground that it has not 

been established that the petitioner and spouse are able to care for the 

child properly if the child is admitted to the United States. 1 

The petitioner works as a handyman and house painter, but he has 

no steady employment. He earned approximately $850.00 during the 

first eight months of 1962. His spouse is night superintendent of 

nurses at Northgate General Hospital, Seattle, and earns $440 a month. 

Her hours of employment are from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. They 

have two daughters of their own, who are 10 and 15 years of age. It 

is stated. that one of the parents is always at home to care for the 

children. 

The petitioner was discharged from the United. States Army on 

May 5, 1944, under conditions other thanhonorable, because of chronic 

alcoholism. While in the army he was convicted four times by courtsmartial for such things as being drunk in quarters and for being 

AWOL. He has a long arrest record. He was arrested and convicted 

of larceny in Seattle twice in 1958 and once in 1959, and was sentenced 

to serve 60 days in jail the first time and 90 days in jail the second and 

third times. He was arrested and fined or sentenced to jail numerous 

Section 205(b), Immigration and Na\tionality Act, as amended. 

624 
Interim Decision #1358 

times in Washington, Oregon, and California for being drunk. The 

last time was on May 17, 1961. 

On the basis of the record in this case it must be concluded that the 

petitioner and his spouse have failed to establish that the orphan will 

be cared for properly if admitted to the United States. Accordingly 

the denial of the petition was proper and the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the decision of the District Director 

be affirmed. 

625 

68- 456-65-41
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 March 2009 – L’Oréal v OHIM – Spa Monopole (SPALINE)**

**(Case T-21/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark SPALINE – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Unfair advantage derived from the reputation of the earlier mark – Use of the mark applied for without due cause – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see
paras 21, 24-25, 35-36, 40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2006 (Case R 415/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | L’Oréal SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Community mark SPALINE for goods in Class 3 – Application No 989236 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National and international word marks SPA, LIP SPA, SPA SKIN CARE and Les Thermes de Spa for goods in Classes 3, 32 and 42. |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs. |
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

NICOLE BARONE
, Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1495

[ October 26, 2017 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; J oel T. Lazarus , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE11025064

.

Nicole Barone, Lighthouse Point, pro se.

Sara F. Holladay

- Tobias of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Samuel Sylvester SIMMONS

No. 229P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Simmons, Samuel Sylvester.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Donna D. Smith, Special Deputy Attorneys General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th of July 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of July 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, NORMAN E. DRAPEAU, JR., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MRO Software, Inc., a
Massachusetts Corporation;

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;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.     The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: December 29, 2003

By: /s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
---------------------------------
Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
# Official Journal L 266/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.266.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 266 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 568 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.266.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 266

English edition

Legislation

Volume 568 October 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2013/480/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 20 September 2013 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Decision 2008/915/EC
  (notified under document C(2013) 5915)

   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2013/480/EU

*

Commission Decision of 20 September 2013 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Decision 2008/915/EC
  (notified under document C(2013) 5915)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2013) 5915)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                            Jurisdiction of   Other Names under which
Subsidiary                                  Incorporation     Subsidiary does Business
<S>                                         <C>                     <C>
AAC Liquidation Corp., Inc.                 Pennsylvania               N/A

Ahab Investment Company                     Delaware                   N/A

Astro Air UK, Ltd.                          United Kingdom             N/A

Motor Products -
      Ohio Corporation                      Delaware                   N/A

Motor Products -
      Owosso Corporation                    Delaware                   N/A

Owosso-Delaware, Inc.                       Delaware                   N/A

Owosso Motor Group, Inc.                    Pennsylvania               N/A

SMX Liquidation Corp., Inc.                 Pennsylvania               N/A

Stature Electric, Inc.                      New York                   N/A


</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01013701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/137

---

(2004/C 88 E/0144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Policy Coherence for Development Network

Subject:

On a Netherlands initiative, a Policy Coherence for Development Network was recently set up for the purpose of promoting information-exchanges between EU Member States on maintaining policy consistency.

| 1. | Can the Commission state how the network operates? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission state how the network operates?

| 2. | What have been the initial results of information-exchanges? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What have been the initial results of information-exchanges?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

(11 December 2003)

At the meeting of Union Directors General for Development Cooperation on 2/3 October 2003, the Dutch Director General tabled a proposal to set up a senior level informal network on coherence, which would foster capacity building, co-ordination and set concrete targets for work on coherence. The participants would alert each other on policy initiatives with implications for development co-operation and spot incoherence where it exists.

The prime objective of the network would be to improve co-ordination between the Member States. On key issues of policy coherence, Member States would communicate and co-ordinate more intensively: exchange information about pending decisions, share analyses of development aspects, draft positions and where possible co-ordinate strategies. It was argued that such an exchange would help to ensure that the development perspective is effectively taken into account in decision making at Union level.

The proposal was warmly welcomed.

The Commission will participate as one of the members of this network.

At this stage the network is still in its inception phase. Member States are designating co-ordinators for information exchange and collaboration between Member States and with the Commission concerning coherence issues. A list of priority issues is being prepared.

---