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



Exhibit 12
 SS&C Technologies, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)
($ in thousands)
 Successor
    
    
    
    PredecessorNovember 23
    
    
    
    January 1Year Ended
    
    
    Year Ended
    
    
    through December
    
    
    
    through
    
    
    Year Ended
    
    
    Year EndedDecember 31,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    31,
    
    
    
    November 22,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    December 31,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003(Loss) income before income taxes
    
    $
    6,117
    
    
    $
    (2,714
    )
    
    $
    831
    
    
    
    $
    3,370
    
    
    $
    31,040
    
    
    $
    19,337Distributed
income and (gains)/losses of equity investee
    
    
    295
    
    
    
    (393
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest expense and amortization of deferred financing costs
    
    
    45,463
    
    
    
    47,427
    
    
    
    4,920
    
    
    
    
    2,092
    
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    2Portion of rentals deemed to be a reasonable approximation of the interest factor
    
    
    2,629
    
    
    
    2,642
    
    
    
    208
    
    
    
    
    2,119
    
    
    
    1,052
    
    
    
    1,046Income available for fixed charges
    
    $
    54,504
    
    
    $
    46,962
    
    
    $
    5,959
    
    
    
    $
    7,581
    
    
    $
    32,101
    
    
    $
    20,385Fixed Charges:Interest expense and amortization of deferred financing costs
    
    $
    45,463
    
    
    $
    47,427
    
    
    $
    4,920
    
    
    
    $
    2,092
    
    
    $
    9
    
    
    $
    2Portion of rentals deemed to be a reasonable approximation
of the interest factor
    
    
    2,629
    
    
    
    2,642
    
    
    
    208
    
    
    
    
    2,119
    
    
    
    1,052
    
    
    
    1,046Total fixed charges
    
    $
    48,092
    
    
    $
    50,069
    
    
    $
    5,128
    
    
    
    $
    4,211
    
    
    $
    1,061
    
    
    $
    1,048Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    *
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    
    1.8
    
    
    
    30.3
    
    
    
    19.5
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 5 A0 15 6 . CEDRI C J ONES v . KI ARA ROBERTS.

K iara Ro berts f

iled a p etitio n to ho ld Ced r ic Jo nes in c o ntemp t fo r failu re to p ay

c hild su p p o rt. A f

t er the tria l c o u rt f

o u nd him in c o ntemp t, J ones f iled this d irec t

ap p eal. W e, ho w ev e r, lac k j u risd ic tio n.

“ Ap p e als f

r o m j u d gments o r o r d e r s in d iv o rc e, alimo ny, and o ther d o mestic

relatio ns c ases” mu st be m a d e by f ilin g an ap p lic atio n fo r d isc retio nary rev iew

. See

OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (2), (b). W here the issu e o n ap p eal is c hild su p p o rt, the c ase is a

d o mestic relatio ns c ase w ithin the meaning o f the s tatu te. See Bo oker v. Ga

. D ept. o f

Hu ma n Res o u rces

, 31 7 Ga. Ap p. 426

, 427 (7 31 SE2d 11 0) (201 2) (an ac tio n in w hic h the

“ und erlying su bj ec t matter is [the] o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e c hild su p p o rt” is “ a d o mestic

relatio ns c ase su bj ec t to r ev iew o nly b y ap p lic atio n” ); see a lso Ru ss o v

. Ma n ni n g

, 252

Ga. 1 55, 155 (31 2 SE2d 31 9 ) (1 9 84) (“ A j ud gment o f c ontemp t r egard ing a d o mestic

relatio n s d e cr e e i s a p p e a l a b l e o n l y b y a p p l i ca t i o n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal. ” ). Altho u gh

OCGA § 5- 6

- 34 (a) (1 1 ) permits a direc t a p p eal f ro m a n ord er ho ld ing a p arty in

c o ntemp t o f

c ertain c hild c u sto d y ru lings, the co ntemp t o rd er here w as based so lely

o n failu re to p ay c h i l d s u p p o r t and t hu s may no t be ap p ealed direc tly. See Vo yles v

.

Vo yles

, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (7 9 9 SE2d 1 6 0 ) ( 2 01 7 ) (ho ld ing that it is the issu e raised o n

ap p eal that d etermines the p ro per ap p ellate p ro c ed u re). August 14, 2024J o nes’ s f ailu r e to f

ollo w the d isc r et i o n a ry ap peal p ro c ed u re d ep riv es u s o f

j u risd ic tio n o v e r this d irec t ap p eal, w hic h is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e

, A t la n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 08/14/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

     <ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from 
the Consolidated Balance Sheet  at September 30, 1996 (Unaudited)  and
the Consolidated Statement  of  Operations  for the nine  months ended
September 30, 1996 (Unaudited) and  is qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                1,605
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,301
<PP&E>                                               38,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                       13,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       28,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,169
<BONDS>                                              21,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                            5,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         28,143
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      5,346
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         2,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                            193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          7.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          7.56
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Franklin 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
   Date: August 16, 2010
    /s/ John J. KuntzJohn J. KuntzChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 29, 2015

No. 04-15-00275-CV

IN RE HIGH PERFORMANCE ROPES OF AMERICA, INC.; 

Copper Clad, S.A. de C.V.; Luis Angel Alvarez Bilbao; Jose Ramon Alvarez Bilbao; 

Luis Enrique Alvarez Saiz; Eduardo Alvarez Saiz; Pablo Alvarez Saiz;

and Alumoclad de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On May 4, 2015, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered 

relators’ petition and is of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on May 29, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CVF-001798 D4, styled CBI Logistics Services L.L.C. and 

Caballero Brokers, Inc. v. High Performance Ropes of America, Inc.; Copper Clad, S.A. de C.V.; Luis Angel 

Alvarez Bilbao; Jose Ramon Alvarez Bilbao; Luis Enrique Alvarez Saiz; Eduardo Alvarez Saiz; Pablo Alvarez Saiz; 

Alumoclad de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and E M Cable International, S.A.de C.V., pending in the 406th Judicial District 

Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Oscar J. Hale Jr. presiding.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00167-CR

Victor W. Hill

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1335688D)

June 4, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 11

                         ALFA CORPORATION
            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


    The following computations set forth the calculation of basic
and diluted net income per common share and common share
equivalents for the three months ended March 31, 2001 and 2000:

                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                      March 31,
                                             ---------------------------
                                                 2001            2000
                                             -----------     -----------
  Net income                                 $14,333,676     $16,350,175
                                             ===========     ===========
  Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                  39,153,707      39,438,331
                                             ===========     ===========

    Net income per common share - Basic      $      0.37     $      0.41
                                             ===========     ===========

                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                      March 31,
                                             ---------------------------
                                                 2001            2000
                                             -----------     -----------
  Net income                                 $14,333,676     $16,350,175
                                             ===========     ===========

  Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                  39,153,707      39,438,331

  Common share equivalents
   resulting from:
    Dilutive stock options                       269,706         201,712
                                             -----------     -----------

  Adjusted weighted average number
   of common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding                         39,423,413      39,640,043
                                             ===========     ===========

    Net income per common share - Diluted    $      0.36     $      0.41
                                             ===========     ===========


                                       25
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2000-12 Filed: 05/14/19 Entered: 05/14/19 17:18:10 Page 1

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2000-12 Filed: 05/14/19 Entered: 05/14/19 17:18:10 Page 2

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2000-12 Filed: 05/14/19 Entered: 05/14/19 17:18:10 Page 3

of 3
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATIONS  OF PRESIDENT  AND CHIEF  EXECUTIVE  OFFICER AND CHIEF  FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Nutrition  21,  Inc., a New York
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  Gail
Montgomery,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  and Paul
Intlekofer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
certify,  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), 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.


/s/ Gail Montgomery
---------------------------
Gail Montgomery
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2004


/s/ Paul Intlekofer
---------------------------
Paul Intlekofer
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nutrition  21, Inc.  and will be retained by Nutrition  21, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

132868 & (23) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132868 

 COA: 272675 

Saginaw CC: 05-026404-FH 

TERRANCE DONELL WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Saginaw Circuit Court for a 

determination of whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, for the appointment of 

appellate counsel, in light of Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 

2d 552 (2005). Appointed counsel may file an application for leave to appeal to the 

Court of Appeals, and/or any appropriate postconviction motions in the trial court, in 

accord with MCR 7.205(F), except that the time for filing shall be determined based on 

the date of the circuit court’s order appointing counsel. Counsel may include among the 

issues raised, but is not required to include, those issues raised by the defendant in his 

application for leave to appeal to this Court. In all other respects, leave to appeal is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should 

now be reviewed by this Court. The motion for bond pending appeal is DENIED as 

moot. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d0516 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 23, 2007 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

*Summary:*                     The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.                

*Time and Place:*                     Monday, June 7, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.                

*Agenda:*                     Agenda items include a focus on the congressionally mandated Competitiveness Report, which focuses on how Ex-Im Bank's programs compare with their major G-7 ECA counterparts during 2009.                

*Public Participation:*                     The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to June 2, 2010, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3232 or e-mail:                     *susan.houser@exim.gov.*

*Further Information:*                     For further information, contact Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.                

Jonathan Cordone,

Senior President and General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-12541 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT CARVER,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-12-00300-CR

Appeal from the

362nd District Court

of Denton County, Texas 

(TC# F-2010-2243-D)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court are two motions by Appellant, pro se, to amend or supplement the 

appellate record. We grant the motion in part and deny in part.

Appellant first requests that the record be amended to include the closing arguments, 

charge conference, and the reading of the jury’s verdict in open court from the punishment phase 

of trial. This portion of the record has been lost and the trial court has entered written findings of 

fact and conclusions of law related to the loss of this portion of the record. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s request to supplement the record with this portion of the reporter’s record is DENIED. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Appellant with a copy of the written findings of fact 

and conclusions of law related to the loss of this portion of the record.

1
Appellant next requests that the clerk’s record be supplemented with the juror information 

forms. Information about the jurors is confidential and may not be disclosed except on a showing 

of a good cause. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. Art. 35.29. Appellant’s request to obtain this 

information is DENIED because he has not made the required showing. 

Appellant asks that the record be supplemented to include the transcript of grand jury 

testimony, including any exculpatory statements made by witnesses in the grand jury. The Court 

has reviewed the reporter’s record of the trial and it appears that no grand jury testimony was 

introduced in evidence. Consequently, the items requested by Appellant cannot be made part of 

the appellate record because they were not part of the record in the trial court. This part of 

Appellant’s motion to amend or supplement is DENIED. 

Appellant also moves that the record be supplemented to include any special requested 

instructions and the trial court’s rulings on same. The record does not indicate that Appellant 

submitted any special requested instructions to the trial court. This request to amend is DENIED.

Appellant asks that the record be amended to include any objections to the trial court’s 

charge at the guilt-innocence phase of trial. The charge conference is recorded in Volume 7, pp. 

5-8 of the reporter’s record and there is nothing to indicate any other charge conference occurred at 

trial. Appellant’s request is DENIED.

Appellant also seeks to have the clerk’s record supplemented to include the jury panel list 

and the strike lists. This request is GRANTED. The trial court clerk is therefore ORDERED to 

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the jury panel list and the strike lists. The 

supplemental clerk’s record must be filed no later than October 10, 2013. Appellant’s motions to 

supplement are otherwise DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2142 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:59:08 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2142 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:59:08 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2142 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:59:08 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2142 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:59:08 Page 4 of

4
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-35257, 333-35259, 333-38657, 333-38659,
333-59783 and 333-59797) and in the Prospectus constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-61005) of Peritus Software Services,
Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2000 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2000