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

JOSTENS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)



|                                                                                              |  | Three months ended |         | Years ended 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------- | ------------
|Dollars in thousands                                                                          |  | June 28,2003       |         | June 29,2002
|Earnings                                                                                      |  |                    |         |             
|Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes                                  |  | $                  | 77,188  |             
|Interest expense (excluding capitalized interest)                                             |  |                    | 27,608  |             
|Portion of rent expense under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor |  |                    | 697     |             
|                                                                                              |  |                    |         |             
|Total earnings                                                                                |  | $                  | 105,493 |             
|                                                                                              |  |                    |         |             
|Fixed charges                                                                                 |  |                    |         |             
|Interest expense (including capitalized interest)                                             |  | $                  | 27,608  |             
|Portion of rent expense under long-term operating leases representative of an interest factor |  |                    | 697     |             
|                                                                                              |  |                    |         |             
|Total fixed charges                                                                           |  | $                  | 28,305  |             
|                                                                                              |  |                    |         |             
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                            |  |                    | 3.7     |             



|1 |  | For the year ended December 30, 2000, earnings did not cover fixed charges by $10.5 million.
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31
 CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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; andd)
    
    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
  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; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  Date: March 1, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonLee Ann AndersonVice President and Senior Trust Officer,
Compass Bank
# C_2008021EN.01000101.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4765 — Symantec/Huawei/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 21/01)

On 18 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4765. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4765. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6365

KENDALL C. WATSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. WELLS, Officer, Riverside Regional Jail; C.

JEFFRIES, Food Service Supervisor, Riverside

Regional Jail; DARNLEY R. HODGE,

Superintendent, Riverside Regional Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00038-JCC)

Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: October 17, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendall C. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kendall C. Watson appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny Watson’s motion to produce court records and trial

transcripts, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Watson v. Wells, No. 1:06-cv-00038-JCC (E.D. Va. Feb. 15,

2006). 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
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           17926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    57848
<ALLOWANCES>                                       910
<INVENTORY>                                      47178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                144303
<PP&E>                                          375186
<DEPRECIATION>                                  117452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  510183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            86626
<BONDS>                                         302533
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                       47561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    510183
<SALES>                                          76840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 76840
<CGS>                                            56902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    75185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (251)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (1552)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5279
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5279
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.26)
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, EVANSVILLE 

ANNEX, Evansville, IN, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1324

Issued: January 27, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 1, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 14, 

2021, merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1324.

By letter dated January 14, 2022, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1324 is dismissed.

Issued: January 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Koontz Electric Company, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62366

)

Under Contract No. W91278-13-C-0001 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Terry L. Salazar, Esq.

 Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett 

 & Moser, P.C.

 Dallas, TX

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

David C. Brasfield, Jr., Esq.

Donna Ward Black, Esq.

Kaley E. Angus, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: February 21, 2024

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62366, Appeal of Koontz 

Electric Company, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: February 21, 2024

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 In connection with the

accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended

December 31, 2004,
and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date

hereof (the Report), I, Lee Ann
Anderson, Vice President and Trust Officer of TexasBank, on behalf

of TexasBank, the Trustee of the
San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust), not in its

individual capacity but solely as Trustee of
the Trust, hereby certify that:  1.
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with

the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as

explained in Note 3
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the

Trusts Annual Report to Unit
Holders for the year ended December 31, 2004, attached as

Exhibit 13 to the Report, in
accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Staff

Accounting Bulletin No. 47,
released September 16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial

statements in a manner
that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such

presentation is
customary to other royalty trusts); and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents,

in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the

Trust. TEXASBANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST By:

/s/ Lee Ann Anderson
Name: Lee Ann Anderson
Title: Vice President and Trust Officer Date:

March 16, 2005 * The Trust has no

executive officers.
rpay-ex101_9.htm



Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

March 1, 2022

This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (as defined below) is made and entered into as of the date first written above by and between Repay Management Services LLC (the “Company”) and John A. Morris (“Executive”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. 

WHEREAS, Executive and the Company (as assignee of M & A Ventures, LLC) are parties to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of January 21, 2019 and amended by that certain First Amendment dated as of March 1, 2021 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, Executive and the Company now desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in accordance with the terms of the Employment Agreement, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, do hereby acknowledge and agree as follows:

1.Target Annual Bonus Adjustment.  The parties agree that the reference to “fifty percent (50%)” in Section 3(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with “one hundred percent (100%) (or such greater percentage as may be approved by the Governing Authority from time to time).”

2.Scope of Amendment.  The parties hereto agree that nothing in this Amendment shall be deemed to modify any of the provisions of the Employment Agreement except as expressly set forth herein, and that, except as expressly set forth herein, the terms of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.

3.Miscellaneous.  The provisions of Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15 and Section 18 of the Employment Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment.  Any reference to the Employment Agreement in the Employment Agreement or any other agreement, document, instrument or certificate entered into or issued in connection therewith shall hereinafter mean the Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment (or as the Employment Agreement may be further amended or modified after the date hereof in accordance with the terms thereof). 

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 

 



 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.

 

COMPANY:

 

REPAY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC

 

 

By:/s/Tim Murphy

Name:  Tim Murphy

Title:  Chief Financial Officer

 

EXECUTIVE:

 

 

/s/ John A. Morris

Name:  John A. Morris

 

 

 

 

 

[Signature Page to Second Amendment to Employment Agreement]
#### STATE v. HARDY

No. 151 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 169.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 March 1973.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION 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 Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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: March 31, 2011/s/    John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive Officer




Date: March 31, 2011/s/    Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5439 

To require that United States contributions to the fund established by the 

United States and Brazil to provide technical assistance and capacity 

building be offset by reductions in direct payments for cotton producers 

under the Farm Bill. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2010 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require that United States contributions to the fund 

established by the United States and Brazil to provide 

technical assistance and capacity building be offset by 

reductions in direct payments for cotton producers under 

the Farm Bill. 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5439 IH

1 SECTION 1. OFFSETTING UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS 

2 TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY 

3 BUILDING FUND WITH REDUCTIONS IN COT4 TON DIRECT PAYMENTS. 

5 Section 1103 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

6 Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8713) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)(6), by striking ‘‘Upland’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘Subject to subsection (e), upland’’; 

9 and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(e) EFFECT OF WTO COTTON DISPUTE.—The Sec13 retary shall reduce the payment rate for upland cotton 

14 under subsection (b) as necessary so that reductions in 

15 the amount of direct payments made to producers for up16 land cotton offset the full cost of any United States con17 tributions to the fund established by the United States 

18 and Brazil to provide technical assistance and capacity 

19 building, as part of the resolution of the cotton dispute 

20 brought by Brazil against the United States in the World 

21 Trade Organization.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### JAMES E. WALSH, Appellant, v. LEE W. WALSH, Respondent.

No. 17776

June 25, 1987

738 P.2d 117

*Stewart L. Bell*and *Steven E. Jones,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Gang & Berkley,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

James and Lee Walsh were divorced in 1980. Lee’s attorney *288drafted the divorce decree which the trial court adopted. James was not represented by counsel. The decree granted to Lee “one-half of [James’] pension with the United States Government.” Five years after the divorce, James chose to retire and receive his U.S. government pension. At that time, Lee claimed she was entitled to receive one-half of James’ entire pension, including that portion earned during the five-year period after the divorce.

James initiated a motion to clarify his and Lee’s rights under the divorce decree. The Domestic Relations Referee and the Trial Court concluded that the decree unambiguously granted Lee one-half of James’ entire pension, including that portion earned after the divorce. They also concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree because six months had passed since its entry. *See*NRCP 60(b); Kramer v. Kramer, 96 Nev. 759, 762, 616 P.2d 395, 397 (1980) (the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree when the motion was not made within six months). We disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the divorce decree and therefore reverse.

We note first of all that only retirement benefits earned during the marriage are community property. Forrest v. Forrest, 99 Nev. 602, 607, 668 P.2d 275, 279 (1983); In re Marriage of Gilmore, 629 P.2d 1, 3 (Cal. 1981). Thus, James was entitled to retain as his sole and separate property benefits earned after the divorce. In the absence of express language specifying otherwise, we are unwilling to conclude that the phrase “one-half of [James’] pension with the United States Government” unambiguously entitles Lee to one-half of that portion of the pension earned after the divorce. In fact when read as a whole, the decree evinces a contrary intent.

The decree divides other community assets by giving James and Lee each one-half of the assets. Most importantly, the decree states that the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce James’ obligation to pay Lee her “community interest” in James’ pension.

In our view, the decree entitles Lee only to one-half of that portion of the pension earned prior to the divorce. We also conclude that the decree can be interpreted based on the language in the decree itself, without resort to extraneous evidence. Therefore, remand for an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.

Gunderson, C. J. and Steffen, Young, and Mowbray, J.J., concur.