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



EXHIBIT 12.01 HARTFORD LIFE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND EARNINGS
TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS 2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Earnings
    
    $
    1,510
    
    
    $
    949
    
    
    $
    567
    
    
    $
    765
    
    
    $
    788Add:Fixed chargesInterest expense
    
    
    97
    
    
    
    117
    
    
    
    112
    
    
    
    104
    
    
    
    66Interest factor attributable to rentals
    
    
    10
    
    
    
    11
    
    
    
    10
    
    
    
    11
    
    
    
    12Total fixed charges
    
    
    107
    
    
    
    128
    
    
    
    122
    
    
    
    115
    
    
    
    78Interest credited to contractholders
    
    
    2,481
    
    
    
    1,120
    
    
    
    1,048
    
    
    
    1,050
    
    
    
    964Total fixed charges including interest
credited to contractholders
    
    
    2,588
    
    
    
    1,248
    
    
    
    1,170
    
    
    
    1,165
    
    
    
    1,042Earnings, as defined
    
    
    1,617
    
    
    
    1,077
    
    
    
    689
    
    
    
    880
    
    
    
    866Earnings, as defined, including interest
credited to contractholders
    
    
    4,098
    
    
    
    2,197
    
    
    
    1,737
    
    
    
    1,930
    
    
    
    1,830RatiosEarnings, as defined, to total fixed charges
    
    
    15.1
    
    
    
    8.4
    
    
    
    5.6
    
    
    
    7.7
    
    
    
    11.1Earnings, as defined, including interest
credited to contractholders, to total fixed
charges including interest credited to
contractholders
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,707
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,207
<PP&E>                                       1,959,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                 171,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,939,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,766,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,939,435
<SALES>                                        866,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               866,960
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,898
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                168,284
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            168,284
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   168,284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE
13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES
CODE




The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with this annual report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of
Logitech International S.A. (“the Company”) for the purpose of complying with
Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
“Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.




Gerald P. Quindlen, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Erik K. Bardman, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certify that, to the best of his knowledge:




(1)
            
            the Report fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
      Act; and(2)
            
            the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.


May 27, 2010/s/ Gerald P.
      QuindlenGerald P. QuindlenPresident andChief Executive Officer/s/ Erik K.
      BardmanErik K. BardmanSenior Vice President, Financeand Chief Financial Officer


---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60834

Summary Calendar

 

CHRISTINE T. HUTCHINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:98-CV-303-RG)

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

June 27, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Christine T. Hutchinson appeals the

district court's judgment affirming the Social Security

Commissioner's decision to deny her disability benefits. She

argues that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") used the wrong

legal standard to determine that she did not have a severe

impairment and that the ALJ's decision was not supported by

substantial evidence. 
2

We have reviewed the record and parties' briefs, and we

conclude that the district court’s ruling is correct. The ALJ

applied the proper standard under Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099,

1101 (5th Cir. 1985), in determining that Hutchinson's impairments

were not severe at the time that her insured status ended. We also

agree with the district court, contrary to Hutchinson's assertion,

that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. See

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Leggett v. Chater,

67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Mark A. MINCY, Appellant, v. Amy K. MINCY, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2039.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 5, 2011.

Walter E. Foster, III, of Walter E. Foster, III, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

*1076Dorothy J. McMichen, of McMichen, Ci-nami, and Demps PLLC, Orlando, for Ap-pellee.

SAWAYA, J.

Mark A. Mincy (“Husband”) appeals a non-final order entered in the underlying dissolution of marriage action awarding Amy K. Mincy (“Wife”) temporary attorney’s fees, accounting fees, and business valuation fees in the amount of $28,000.1

We affirm the award of $11,000 for fees awarded to Wife’s current attorney. We reverse the award of $5,000 for costs of valuation of Husband’s business because Wife has abandoned her request for a business valuation. We also reverse the awards of $4,000 for fees for Wife’s prior attorney and $8,000 for her accountant fees and remand to the trial court to make sufficient findings regarding the reasonableness of those awards. *See*§ 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“The court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter....”); *Stanton v. Stanton,*50 So.3d 688, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); *Baker v. Baker,*35 So.3d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

1

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carl PAYNE.

No. 2011-KO-0387.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Payne, Carl; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 09-3350; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 10-KA-46, 10-KA-47.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.;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(s) 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:  June 22, 2009
    /s/ ROBERT M. SINNOTTRobert M. SinnottChief Financial Officer
#### Brett COOKER, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Carmax Auto Superstores Inc., Appellee.

No. 1D11-5971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 30, 2012.

Brett Cooker, pro se, Appellant.

A. Robert Whaley, General Counsel, and Louis A. Gutierrez, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee’s Motion to' Dismiss is hereby granted. DISMISSED. *Durando v. Palm Beach County,*719 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

WOLF, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











 



EXHIBIT 10.46  


 
 

Compensation Recovery Policy    
    


(Adopted
on December 10, 2008) 


        In
addition to any other remedies available to Synopsys, Inc. (the "Company") under applicable law, to the extent permitted by law
and as the Board of Directors of the Company in its sole discretion determines appropriate, the Company may require reimbursement of all or a portion of any bonus, incentive payment, commission,
equity-based award or other compensation granted or received after January 1, 2009, by all individuals who were, or any individual who was, a Section 16 Officer or Corporate Staff Member
when such compensation is granted or received, where (1) the compensation was predicated upon achieving certain financial results that were subsequently the subject of a substantial restatement
of Company financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and (2) less compensation would have been earned by the individual based upon the restated financial results.
A "Section 16 Officer" refers to an individual designated as such by the Board of Directors who is subject to liability, reporting and other requirements pursuant to Section 16 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A "Corporate Staff Member" refers to an individual designated by the Board of Directors of the Company to be a member of the Company's corporate staff. 











QuickLinks


Compensation Recovery Policy
**Exhibit 32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted**


**pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-K of Eclipsys Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, R.
      Andrew Eckert, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(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.





Dated:
      May 22, 2007





/s/
      R.
      Andrew Eckert


R.
      Andrew
      Eckert


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION
  Dated: March 1, 2010
    /s/ Bruce W. DuncanBruce W. DuncanChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.Dated: March 1, 2010

/s/
Scott A. MusilScott A. MusilChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. The information contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v. JESSIE PAUL OGLE , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 20

- 0507 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014

- 150017

- 001 The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent
The Nolan Law Firm, PLLC , Mesa By Todd E. Nolan C ounsel for Appellant FILED 5-11-2021STATE v. OGLE Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani, Judge Samuel A. Thumma , and Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Jessie Paul Ogle seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief. This is Ogle’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See Stat e v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          37,235
<SECURITIES>                                    17,003
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,155)
<INVENTORY>                                        517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,787
<PP&E>                                          26,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,732)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (97,526)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         (300)
<OTHER-SE>                                    (98,319)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (216,556)
<SALES>                                        170,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,689
<CGS>                                         (98,087)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (98,087)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (105,697)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,669)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,252)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,678)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,678)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### Carolyn D. MOORE, Administratrix of the Estate of Phillip P. Morello, Deceased, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Jay ASTER, Individually and t/a Wingate Construction Company, Third-Party Defendant, Cross-Claimant and Cross-Claim Defendant, and Philadelphia Electric Company, Third-Party Defendant, Cross-Claimant and Cross-Claim Defendant, and Russell W. Morello and Anthony Morello, Individually and as Partners Trading as Russell W. Morello Excavating and Paving Contractor, Third-Party Defendant, Cross-Claimant and Cross-Claim Defendant.

No. 14491.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 4, 1964.

Decided June 8, 1964.

Elwood S. Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Isaac S. Garb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for United States (Drew J. T. O’Keefe, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief).

James J. McCabe, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Duane, Morris & Heekscher, Richard Rosenbleeth, Steinberg, Richman, Price & Steinbrook, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for third-party defendant Jay Aster, Individually and t/a Wingate Const. Co.

Daniel J. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa. (LaBrum & Doak, William F. Fox, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Russell W. and Anthony Morello.

Before McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges, and LEAHY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried to the court. Our own examination of the trial record shows substantial affirmative evidence in support of the district court’s finding as a trier of the fact that plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of contributory negligence which was a juridical cause of his death. Appellant’s other points are without merit.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
##### 



AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Agreement th Effective Date Executive IONA, Inc. Company IONA PLC
 WHEREAS Prior Agreement
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 Position and Responsibilities Board of Directors Group provided




---



##### 



Compensation: Salary, Bonuses and Other Benefits
 Base Salary Base Salary st
 Bonus Bonus
 Other Benefits
 Vacation




---



##### 



Reimbursement of Business Expenses
 Indemnification
 Tax Withholding
 Equity Compensation
 Term Term Initial Term
 Termination Termination
Date
 Termination By The Executive provided




---



##### 



Accrued Obligations
 Termination By The Company For Cause Cause Cause nolo contendere
  Termination By The Company For Reasons Other Than Cause




---



##### 



provided
  COBRA COBRA Ineligibility Date provided




---



##### 



Termination Due To Death Or Disability Disability
 Resignation For Good Reason st
 Events
 (A)
    
    Material reduction of the Executives base
compensation (i.e., base salary and bonus eligibility); or(B)
    
    Substantial reduction in the scope or
nature of the Executives responsibilities, duties, authorities,
positions, powers or reporting structure or relationships, except due
to the Executives Disability or Cause; provided,
further, that the Company may suspend the Executive with full
pay (1) due to physical incapacity or mental incompetence before an
aggregate of 90 days is reached or (2) during the period of an
investigation concerning whether Cause exists; or(C)
    
    Relocation of the Executives primary
workplace to a location more than 35 miles away from Waltham,
Massachusetts; or(D)
    
    The Board of Directors shall have failed to
recommend, to the shareholders of IONA PLC, the election of the
Executive to the Board of Directors at any general meeting of the
shareholders of IONA PLC during the Term at which the class of
directors to which the Executive shall have been assigned stands for
election; and




---



##### 



Public Statements
 Change of Control Agreement Change in
Control Agreement
 409A Section
409A
 Agreement Regarding Confidentiality, Proprietary Developments and Noncompetition Nondisclosure
Agreement
 Consent and Waiver by Third Parties




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Severability/Reformation
 Waivers and Modifications
 Assignment
 Entire Agreement




---



##### 



Notices
 If to the Company, to:
    
    Attention: General CounselIONA Technologies, Inc.200 West Street, 4th FloorWaltham, MA 02451with a copy to:
    
    Mark T. Bettencourt, Esq.Goodwin Procter LLPExchange PlaceBoston, MA 02109If to Executive, at his address set forth below his signature hereto.
  Counterparts
 Section Headings
 Survival




---



##### 



IONA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Christopher Mirabile
    
    
    
    /s/ Peter M. ZottoTitle:
    
    Secretary
    
    
    
    Peter M. ZottoStreet AddressCity                  State                  Zip CodeIONA TECHNOLOGIES PLCBy:
    
    /s/ Christopher MirabileTitle:
    
    General Counsel, Secretary
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Darlene C. Amrhein, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00107

- CV v.
La Madeleine, Inc., Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No 5 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CC

96

- 10227

- E ). Opinion del ivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the tri al court

. We note that the appellant, Darlene C. Amrhein, has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 6, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk