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



Exhibit 12  GARDNER
    DENVER, INC.
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    (Dollars in thousands)
  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2007


2006


2005


2004


2003Earnings:Income before income taxes

$
268,360



200,615



95,644



52,286



30,358Fixed charges


33,034



43,530



35,746



12,704



6,019Earnings, as defined

$
301,394



244,145



131,390



64,990



36,377Fixed Charges:Interest expense

$
26,211



37,379



30,433



10,102



4,748Rentals - portion representative of interest


6,823



6,151



5,313



2,602



1,271Total fixed charges

$
33,034



43,530



35,746



12,704



6,019Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


9.1
x


5.6
x


3.7
x


5.1
x


6.0x
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SECTION OF THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,057,650
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          37,872
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        46,876
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,142,398
<COMMON>                                        85,474
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      192,717
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             66,927
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 345,118
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           467,587
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  95,310
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     15,777
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   464
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 218,142
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,142,398
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       57,636
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             8,097
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      26,405
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      34,502
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         23,134
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 223
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  23,357
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        10,248
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,109
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   13,109
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        15,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,262
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          35,611
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   13,109
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   13,109
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 641 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 641

   To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect first amendment 
                    rights, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 1995

 Mrs. Schroeder (for herself, Mr. Shays, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Morella, Mr. 
 Waxman, and Mr. Torkildsen) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect first amendment 
                    rights, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Right To Know Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

    Title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``Sec. 1107. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
governmental authority shall in or through any program or activity, 
administered or assisted by such authority, that provides health care 
services or information, limit the right of any person to provide, or 
the right of any person to receive, nonfraudulent information about the 
availability of reproductive health care services, including family 
planning, prenatal care, adoption, and abortion services.
    ``(b) As used in this section--
            ``(1) the term `governmental authority' means any authority 
        of any State or of the United States; and
            ``(2) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, 
        Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the 
        United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 18

Curby Toussaint,

Respondent,

v.

Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey,

Appellant,

et al.,

Defendants.

Christian H. Gannon, for appellant.

Brian J. Shoot, for respondent.

Reargument ordered for a future Court session. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera,

Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

Decided April 1, 2021
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Hirsch International Corp.

Hauppauge, New York

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-94914 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-30237 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-122627 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-138971 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-33535 on Form S-3, Registration No. 333-26539 on Form S-3 and Registration No. 333-11507 on Form S-3 of Hirsch International Corp. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 30, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hirsch International Corp. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP

Melville, New York

March 30, 2009
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.24.3


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC.
ASSOCIATE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


Pursuant to action taken by the Board of Directors of Brookdale Senior Living Inc. under Section 9.2 of the Brookdale Senior Living Inc. Associate Stock Purchase Plan effective as of October 1, 2008, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Brookdale Senior Living Inc. Associate Stock Purchase Plan effective as of December 12, 2013 (as amended, the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended effective February 13, 2020 as follows:


1.    Section 6.4 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


6.4    PURCHASE OF STOCK.  On an Exercise Date, all options shall be automatically exercised, except that the options of a Participant who has terminated employment pursuant to Section 7.1 or who has withdrawn all of his or her contributions shall expire.  The Contribution Account of each Participant shall be used to purchase the maximum number of whole shares of Stock determined by dividing the Exercise Price into the balance of the Participant’s Contribution Account, subject to the limitation on options under Section 6.6(a).  Any balance remaining in a Participant’s Contribution Account as a result of the limitation on options under Section 6.6(a) or otherwise up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) shall remain in the Participant’s Contribution Account to be used in the next Option Period along with new contributions in the next Option Period.  The balance of a Participant’s Contribution Account in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and the entire balance remaining of a Participant who does not enroll for the next Option Period shall be returned to the Participant in cash, without interest.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wntteb $)tate~ ~ourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI ~trtutt

IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. AND

SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellants,

AND

DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

2012-1313

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Central District of California in case no. 10-CV-7416,

Judge R. Gary KIausner.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Leggett & Platt, Inc. and Simmons Bedding Company

move without opposition to withdraw Donald E. Tiller as

counsel.

Case: 12-1313 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 10/15/2012
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 2

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Case: 12-1313 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 10/15/2012
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Robert S. Ehrlich, certify that:
  1.      I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Arotech Corporation;
  2.      Based on my knowledge, this amended annual 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 amended annual report;
  Date: September 12, 2013
 By: /s/ Robert S. Ehrlich
 Robert S. Ehrlich
 Chairman and CEO
 (Chief Executive Officer)
Second Department,

November, 1908.

#### Antoni Puczko, Respondent, *v.*John Kovacs, Appellant.

*Debtor and creditor*— *bank deposit*— *conflict of evidence*— *questions for jury.*

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 25th day of May, 1908, upon the verdict of a jury.

Woodward, J.:

It is not disputed that the plaintiff, an illiterate Hungarian, deposited at various times between September 21, 1907, and January 26, 1908, sums of money aggregating §450. The defendant admits this. The plaintiff brings an action to recover the amount, and the defendant admits that there is owing the plaintiff the sum of §150, but claims that on the 25th day of October, 1907, the plaintiff demanded and received the sum of §300. There was a distinct conflict of evidence so pronounced in fact that the case has been twice tried, because the justice who originally tried it refused to determine the facts and caused the case to be sent to a jury, and the defendant now urges that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. We are unable to concur in this view. It is true that a greater number of witnesses testify in support of the defendant’s claim that the §300 was paid, but there are facts and circumstances which would justify a jury in believing that the plaintiff’s case was supported by the higher class of evidence. The testimony on the part of the defendant is contradictory in many respects, while that of the plaintiff seems entirely consistent with his claim. The case was one peculiarly within the province of a jury, and there being no legal error pointed out, there is no reason why the judgment should be disturbed. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000915781
<NAME> RTW, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           108,064
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 108,064
<CASH>                                             302
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               2,323
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,511
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 99,831
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             12,766
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,808
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,511
<PREMIUMS>                                      71,218
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,510
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  84
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      43,323
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     14,111
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            12,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,924
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,167
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,167
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  97,269
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             79,333
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                             (11,868)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              27,841
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                37,062
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 99,831
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Paradigm Medical  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Y. Yoon,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (c)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (d)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material respect, the financial condition and result of operations
              of the Company.



                                            /s/Luis A. Mostacero
                                            ----------------------------------
Date: November 4, 2004                      Luis A. Mostacero
                                            Controller
#### Charles SANCHEZ, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant.

No. WD 52999.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 21, 1997.

*892Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General, James A Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

BERREY, Judge.

Appellant notified Respondent that his driver’s license would be revoked because he refused to take a chemical test to ascertain his blood alcohol content. Respondent filed a petition for review. Both parties stipulated to submitting the cause on the record.

Judge Romano sustained the petition, finding that the Respondent was not informed his license would be “immediately” revoked because he refused to take the chemical test.

The appellant subsequently filed this appeal.

For its sole point relied on, the appellant alleges that Judge Romano erred in setting aside the revocation. The respondent was accurately advised his license would be revoked even though the specific language of § 577.041.1 was not used by the officer. Under § 577.041.1, the arresting officer “shall inform the person ... that his license shall be immediately revoked upon his refusal to take the test.”

The trial judge acknowledged this was a case under *“Logan”,*and made his ruling following *Logan.*

In *Logan v. Director of Revenue,*906 S.W.2d 888 (Mo.App.1995), the court set aside the revocation of driving privileges because the arresting officer failed to inform the driver that his license would immediately be revoked because he refused the chemical test. During the pendency of his appeal, *Logan*was overruled by *Teson v. Director of Revenue,*937 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. banc 1996). In *Teson,*the Supreme Court upheld the license revocation based on the warning of the police officer that did not include “immediately.” However, the warning left no doubt that the license would be revoked if the test was refused.

In *Tesón,*the Supreme Court held the failure to use the exact statutory word “immediately” would require vacating the revocation only if the arrestee demonstrates that he has been prejudiced because the exact statutory language was not used.

The court stated:

> When the arresting officer fails to use the words of the statute in reciting the warning, the test to determine whether the arrestee’s decision to refuse to submit to a chemical test is an informed one is whether the warning was so deficient as actually to prejudice the arrestee’s decision making process.

*Teson v. Director of Revenue,*937 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. banc 1996).

The instant case is now controlled by *Teson,*not *Logan.*The respondent has not demonstrated any prejudice to himself because the officer failed to use the exact wording of the statute.

The cause is reversed and remanded for the trial court to reinstate the revocation of respondent’s driving privileges.

All concur.
#### Myrtle Timmerman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ivan Wilson, Defendant-Appellee, and Marvin D. Wilson and Carl Pankey, Defendants.

Gen. No. 65-100. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fifth District.

August 31, 1966.

Listeman, Bandy & Hamilton, of East St. Louis, and N. Murry Edwards, of St. Louis, Missouri, for appellant; Loy & Cochran, of Fair-field, for appellee.

Opinion by JUSTICE MORAN. Not to be published in full.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         MICHAEL TROKEY & COMPANY, P.C.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                               10411 CLAYTON ROAD
                              ST. LOUIS, MO  63131



The Board of Directors
First Missouri Bancshares, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
First Missouri Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-82228) of our report
dated November 10, 1995, of our audit of the consolidated financial statements
of First Missouri Bancshares, Inc. as of September 30, 1995, and for the year
then ended, which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.


                                                  MICHAEL TROKEY & COMPANY, P.C.



St. Louis, Missouri
December 20, 1996


                                      115
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 Quarterly Report of Thomas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.








Date:   August 19, 2009





By: /s/ Mark Meller


Mark Meller


Chief Executive Officer and


Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6934

ROBERT EARLE RAMBO,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:12-cv-00034-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 24, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earle Rambo, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earle Rambo seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rambo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED