alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1




                                  EXHIBIT 12.1


<PAGE>   2
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                                 TRANSTAR, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         For the year ended December 31,                      
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1996           1995           1994           1993            1992
                                                      ----           ----           ----           ----            ----
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
Income before income taxes,
  extraordinary item and change in
  accounting principle.......................        $103,714        $93,915        $86,102        $25,976         $18,261
Fixed charges:
Interest expense and amortization of
  debt issuance costs........................         $21,314        $24,144        $25,253        $47,838         $56,608
Interest expense on rentals..................           7,854          6,057          6,225          6,956           6,956
                                                      -------        -------       --------        -------         -------
       Total fixed charges...................         $29,168        $30,201        $31,478        $54,794         $63,564
                                                      =======        =======        =======        =======         =======
Earnings before income taxes,
  extraordinary item, change in
  accounting principle and fixed
  charges....................................        $132,882       $124,116       $117,580        $80,770         $81,825
                                                     ========       ========       ========        =======         =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...........            4.56           4.11           3.74           1.47            1.29
                                                         ====           ====           ====           ====            ====
</TABLE>

Income for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996 includes non-recurring charges
(credits) $8.5 million, $17.3 million $(1.7) million, and $(1.0) million,
respectively.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Research Resources 
Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA.
    Date: September 24-25, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, Double Tree Name Changed, 
1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Mohan Viswanathan, PHD, Deputy Director, 
National Center for Research Resources, or National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1084, Msc 4874, 1 Democracy 
Plaza, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0829, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107d66212076507e79783e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="69041f58590f29070001470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical 
Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18749 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 695

To amend section 3626 of title 18, United States Code, to provide certain

additional rules with respect to litigation regarding prison conditions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1995

Mr. ARCHER (for himself and Mr. SAM JOHNSON) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 3626 of title 18, United States Code,

to provide certain additional rules with respect to litigation regarding prison conditions.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prison Litigation Con5 trol Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. LITIGATION REGARDING PRISON CONDITIONS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter C of chapter 229 of

8 title 18, United States Code, is amended—

9 (1) in section 3626—
2

•HR 695 IH

1 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘crowding’’

2 and inserting ‘‘conditions’’;

3 (B) in subsection (a)(1)—

4 (i) by inserting ‘‘a’’ before ‘‘prison or

5 jail’’;

6 (ii) by striking ‘‘crowding’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘condition’’ each place it appears; and

8 (iii) by adding at the end ‘‘A condition

9 relating to the facilities and opportunities

10 afforded prisoners does not inflict cruel

11 and unusual punishment unless that condi12 tion constitutes a deprivation of the mini13 mum necessities of civilized life to an indi14 vidual plaintiff inmate, and the responsible

15 officials are deliberately indifferent to that

16 individual plaintiff inmate’s deprivation.’’;

17 (C) by striking subsection (b); and

18 (D) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘or ter19 mination’’ after ‘‘modification’’; and

20 (2) in the table of sections at the beginning of

21 such subchapter, in the item relating to section

22 3626, by striking ‘‘crowding’’ and inserting

23 ‘‘conditions’’.

24 (b) EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS.—The amendments

25 made by this section shall apply to—
3

•HR 695 IH

1 (1) all outstanding court orders and consent de2 grees; and

3 (2) all pending and future cases, and in any

4 case reopened under section 3626(c) of title 18,

5 United States Code.

6 (c) ELIMINATION OF SUNSET PROVISION.—Section

7 20409 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

8 Act of 1994 is amended by striking subsection (d).

Æ
#### Mayor and City Council of the City of Roodhouse v. Mattie E. Briggs.

1. Cities and Villages—Act *of "May 10,1901, in Regard to Disconnecting Territory from City.—-The*act of May 10, 1901, makes it discretionary with the city council whether it will or will not disconnect territory from the city on the application of the owners thereof, and is applicable to judgments already rendered when the ordinance making the disconnection has not been passed and the cases in which such judgments have been rendered are pending in upper courts for review at the time said act was passed. .

Mandamus.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene County; the Hon. Robert B. Shirley, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1902.

Reversed.

Opinion filed November 1, 1902.

Alfred B. Davis, city attorney, and John W. Starkey, attorneys for appellants.

D. J. Sullivan, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Burroughs

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a petition for a writ of mandamus, brought by Mattie E. Briggs against the mayor and city council of the city of Roodhouse, in the Circuit Court of Greene County, to compel them to pass an ordinance disconnecting certain territory belonging to her from the city. The Circuit Court awarded the writ and on appeal by the city to the Supreme Court the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction in that court to entertain same before the case had been reviewed by this court and the mayor and city council now prosecute a writ of error out of this court to the Circuit Court to obtain a reversal of the judgment of the latter court.

After the judgment was rendered in the Circuit Court the general assembly passed the act of May 10, 1901, making it discretionary with the city council whether it would not disconnect territory on the application of the owners thereof.

In Vance v. Rankin, 194 Ill. 625, it is held that said act *117of May 10th was applicable to judgments already rendered when the ordinance making the disconnection had not been passed and the cases in which such judgments had been rendered were pending in upper courts for review at the time said act was passed. (City of Charleston v. Wiley, 195 Ill. 433.)

What was said by the Supreme Court in the cases *supra,*is conclusive of the question in this case. The judgment of the Circuit Court will therefore be reversed.

Each party will pay his own costs in this court. (City of Charleston v. Wiley, *supra.)*
Exhibit 32.1





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 Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Gregory L. Paige





Gregory L. Paige


Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 17, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Rickey A. BECHTEL, Appellant, v. Daniel A. VIRTUE, Business Agent of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Local 776, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and ABF Freight System, Incorporated

No. 02-3195.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 22, 2003.

Decided July 30, 2003.

Before: ALITO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and SURRICK,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Rickey Bechtel appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants Daniel Virtue, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”), Local 776, and ABF Freight System (“ABF”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The standard of review applicable to an order granting summary judgment is plenary. *Curley v. Klem,*298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir.2002). We apply the same test employed by a district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). *See Kelley v. TYK Refractories Co.,*860 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3d Cir.1988). Accordingly, the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants was proper only if it appears that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In evaluating the evidence, we are required “to view the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” *Bartnicki v. Vopper,*200 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir.1999).

Bechtel contends in this hybrid *DelCostello*suit that defendants Virtue, IBT, and Local 776 breached their duty of fair representation, and that defendant ABF breached the collective bargaining agreement. Virtue and IBT moved for summary judgment on the ground that they are not proper parties for the breach of duty claim. Virtue, IBT, and Local 776 moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The District Court determined that no duty of fair representation had been breached by any defendant, and thus did not address the proper party issue. (App., p. 15). The District Court then concluded that, because a breach of the duty of fair representation is a necessary condition precedent, Bechtel could not state a claim for breach of the collective bargaining agreement against ABF. *Id.*at 17 (citing *DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,*462 U.S. 151, 164-65, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983); *Albright v. Virtue,*273 F.3d 564, 576 (3d Cir.2001)). Accordingly, *131the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

We have carefully considered Bechtel’s arguments in this appeal and find that they lack merit. For the reasons stated in the District Court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion, we find that summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants. We therefore affirm.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 802 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 802

 To prohibit payment of Federal retirement benefits, except in certain 
    cases, to those who are not retired as defined under the Social 
                             Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1995

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and, in addition, to the 
 Committees on National Security, House Oversight, the Judiciary, and 
  the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit payment of Federal retirement benefits, except in certain 
    cases, to those who are not retired as defined under the Social 
                             Security Act.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

    The United States Government shall not pay retirement benefits to 
or through any person who ceases United States Government employment 
after the year 2000 unless that person is retired as defined under the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). The preceding sentence 
does not apply to former public safety officers (as defined in section 
1204(7) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 3796b(7)) and former members of the Armed Forces who have been 
exposed to actual combat dangers as a result of hostile activities by 
opposing forces.
                                 <all>
```
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-1954

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

David C. Hairabedian, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 1997

 Filed: August 25, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David C. Hairabedian appeals the district court&s denial without an 1

evidentiary hearing of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate the 262-month

sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. After de novo

review, we conclude the denial was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

We also deny Hairabedian&s motions for oral argument, appointment of

counsel, remand, and permission to supplement the record.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8567
RONALD A. WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Correction, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 2083-AMD) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald A. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson v. Lanham , No. CA-95-2083-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 27, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                           2001 PERFORMANCE BONUS PLAN



All employees of the company are eligible to receive cash bonuses based on
results.

Regional operating and underwriting personnel earn cash bonuses based on (i)
specific measurements in their control that impact the profitability of the
organization (50%), and (ii) profitability of the organization (corporate
earnings per share). Cash payments for performance on specific measurements are
paid quarterly, subject to minimum regional profitability criteria. Cash
payments for performance on corporate earnings per share are paid annually at
year-end after completion of the year-end audit.

Home office operating, underwriting and administrative personnel not subject to
the regional bonus plans earn cash bonuses based upon corporate earnings per
share. Cash bonuses for performance on corporate earnings per share targets are
paid one-half quarterly and one-half annually at year-end after completion of
the yearend audit.

Executive officers and management personnel earn cash bonuses based upon
corporate earnings per share and are paid annually at year-end after completion
of the year-end audit.
#### STEVENS v. RITCHIE GROCER CO., Inc., et al. *

No. 5186.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 3, 1936.

McHenry, Lamkin & Lamkin, of Monroe, for appellant.

Wilkinson, Lewis & Wilkinson, of Shreveport, and Madison, Madison & Fuller, of Monroe, for appellees.

*

Rehearing denied April 30, 1936,

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion case to suit No. 5185, styled Lee Stanley et al. v. Ritchie Grocer Co., Inc., et al., 167 So. 124, decided by us this day.

Plaintiff herein was a guest in the Stanley car and was injured in the accident refer*127red to and discussed in the Stanley Case, and has instituted this suit for damages.

The two cases were consolidated for trial below, and there is one note of evidence covering both cases. Since we have found in the Stanley Case that the negligence of defendant’s truck driver did not contribute to and was not a proximate cause of the accident, it follows that the plaintiff herein cannot recover. See opinion in suit No. S18S for reasons.

The lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands for the reason that it found her to be guilty of contributory negligence to such extent as to bar her recovery. Under our finding in case No. S18S, it is unnecessary to discuss this phase of the case.

The judgment of the lower court rejecting the demands of plaintiff at her costs is affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
JACOB HERC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3616 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed February 14, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kim Campbell, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KELLY, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated audited financial statements for the year ending 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          16,617
<SECURITIES>                                     6,837
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,408
<INVENTORY>                                      5,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,495
<PP&E>                                          27,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,890
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,709
<SALES>                                         79,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,476
<CGS>                                           31,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,688)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.63)


</TABLE>