alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENTAUDITORS**
     We consent to the reference to our firm under thecaption “Selected Financial Data” in this AnnualReport (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31,2002, and to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-13802) andRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-06850,333-11384, 333-12326, 333-13224, 333-13330 and 333-13494)pertaining to the Executive Share Option Scheme, the1997 Share Option Scheme, as amended, the 1997 DirectorShare Option Scheme and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofIONA Technologies PLC, the 1997 Stock Plan of GenesisDevelopment Corporation, the Stock Option Plan ofObject-Oriented Concepts, Inc. and the 1999 Stock Option Plan ofNetfish Technologies, Inc., of our report dated January 21,2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofIONA Technologies PLC included in this Annual Report(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2002.
 ERNST & YOUNG    
Dublin, IrelandApril 4, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                             FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                2002           2001           2000
                                                            ------------    ----------    -----------
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>           <C>
Income from Continuing Operations Before
Gain on Sale of Real Estate..............................   $     78,863    $   94,890    $    95,811

Plus:  Interest  Expense and Amortization
of Deferred Financing Costs..............................         89,297        80,583         82,568
                                                            ------------    ----------    -----------

Earnings Before Fixed Charges............................   $    168,160    $  175,473    $   178,379
                                                            ============    ==========    ===========

Fixed Charges and Preferred Unit Distributions...........   $     97,089    $   90,533    $    87,771
                                                            ============    ==========    ===========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Unit
Distributions (a)........................................          1.73x         1.94x          2.03x
                                                            ============    ==========    ===========
</TABLE>

(a)      For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges,
         earnings have been calculated by adding fixed charges (excluding
         capitalized interest) to income from continuing operations before gain
         on sale of real estate. Fixed charges consist of interest costs,
         whether expensed or capitalized, and amortization of deferred financing
         costs.
Supreme Court of Louisiana 

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #013

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of March, 2015, are as follows:

PER CURIAM: 

2014-C -1233 NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL. v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL. 

(Parish of Vermilion)

Accordingly, the lower courts judgments are reversed, and the 

case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

WEIMER, J., concurs, and assigns reasons.

GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
03/17/15

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2014-C-1233

NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL.

VERSUS

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,

THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF VERMILION

PER CURIAM

Because Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275,

10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So. 3d 246, addressed subsequent purchaser

rights following a sale, which are distinguishable from the rights acquired through a

succession transfer, we find Eagle Pipe is not dispositive of the exceptions of no right

of action filed by the defendants in this case. Accordingly, the lower court judgments

are reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

1

Plaintiffs also included Nellie Pierce and Pierce Enterprises. The court of appeal concluded

1

“[i]t is undisputed that neither Mrs. Pierce nor Pierce Enterprises have any ownership interest in any

of the property at issue before the court.” The parties limited their arguments to the rights of the

Pierce children as “universal legatees.” Therefore, the rights of Nellie Pierce and Pierce Enterprises

are not at issue. 
03/17/15

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2014-C-1233

NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL.

VERSUS

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT,

PARISH OF VERMILION

WEIMER, J., concurring.

I concur in the result. See Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess

Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246 (Weimer,

J., dissenting at pp. 284-88, 291-93).
1

03/17/15

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2014-C-1233

NELLIE PIERCE, ET AL.

VERSUS

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL

THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF VERMILLION

GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

I concur in the result of our per curiam decision today. I write separately to 

point out that our reversal of the lower courts’ rulings, because they relied on the 

subsequent purchaser doctrine as applied in Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada 

Hess Corp., 10-2267, 10-2275, 10-2279, 10-2289 (La. 10/25/11), 79 So.3d 246, 

does not address the merits of any other basis for the defendants’ exceptions or 

defenses, including extinguishment of the plaintiffs’ claims by confusion and 

prescription or peremption.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1342 

To suspend the visa waiver program until certain entry-exit control 

requirements are met, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. GINGREY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To suspend the visa waiver program until certain entryexit control requirements are met, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Secure Entry Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF VISA WAIVER PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, the visa waiver program established under sec8 tion 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

9 1187) is hereby suspended until such time as the Secmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1342 IH

1 retary of Homeland Security determines and certifies to 

2 Congress that— 

3 (1) the automated entry-exit control system au4 thorized under section 110 of the Illegal Immigra5 tion Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

6 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is fully implemented and 

7 functional; 

8 (2) all United States ports of entry have func9 tional biometric machine readers; and 

10 (3) all nonimmigrants, including Border Cross11 ing Card holders, are processed through the auto12 mated entry-exit control system. 

13 (b) REPEAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

14 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

15 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is hereby repealed. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      22,755,009
<SECURITIES>                                59,091,353
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,906,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (64,492)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,761,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            90,809,490
<PP&E>                                       8,885,186
<DEPRECIATION>                              (4,127,056)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,936,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,359,926
<BONDS>                                          5,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          292,361
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,187,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,936,075
<SALES>                                      7,204,516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,884,867
<CGS>                                        3,580,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,580,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,391,618
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,673,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,673,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,673,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.092)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.092)


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Clovis JULIEN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0134.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Julien, Clovis; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 15^437, 15^439.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,964,929
<SECURITIES>                                   171,014
<RECEIVABLES>                                  487,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,136,813
<PP&E>                                       3,934,869
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,351,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,719,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,707,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,207
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,904,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,719,830
<SALES>                                     14,407,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,407,680
<CGS>                                       10,391,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,391,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,359,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,715,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                   702,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,013,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,013,328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. C.W.W.

No. 2010-K-2866.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re W., C.W.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR-367-07; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-531.

Denied.
News United States Air Force
 First AF reservist assumes role as AF assistant vice chiefPublished Aug. 29, 2016
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE ANDREWS, Md. (AFNS) --**
                Lt. Gen. Stayce D. Harris received her new rank during a promotion ceremony here Aug. 26. Former Women Airforce Service Pilot Pauline Cutler-White and retired Col. Charles McGee, one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, helped pin on the new rank.Harris, a command pilot with more than 2,500 hours in the C-130H Hercules, KC-135R Stratotanker, C-141B/C, T-38 Talon and T-37, is the Air Force's first black female lieutenant general. She is also the first reservist to fill the position of the assistant vice chief of staff and director of the air staff.promotion 



VCSAF 



Joint Base Andrews 



FM
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 12 

To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for purposes 

of determining assistance under the Impact Aid program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for purposes of determining assistance under the 

Impact Aid program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT. 

4 (a) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—Notwith5 standing section 8013(9)(B) of the Elementary and Sec6 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)(B)), 

7 North Chicago Community Unit School District 187, 

8 North Shore District 112, and Township High School Dis9 trict 113 in Lake County, Illinois, and Glenview Public 

10 School District 34 and Glenbrook High School District 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 12 IH

1 225 in Cook County, Illinois, shall be considered local edu2 cational agencies as such term is used in and for purposes 

3 of title VIII of such Act. 

4 (b) COMPUTATION.—Notwithstanding any other pro5 vision of law, federally connected children (as determined 

6 under section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 

7 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a))) who are in 

8 attendance in the North Shore District 112, Township 

9 High School District 113, Glenview Public School District 

10 34, and Glenbrook High School District 225 described in 

11 subsection (a), shall be considered to be in attendance in 

12 the North Chicago Community Unit School District 187 

13 described in subsection (a), solely for purposes of com14 puting the amount that the North Chicago Community 

15 Unit School District 187 is eligible to receive under sub16 section (b) or (d) of such section, if— 

17 (1) such school districts have entered into an 

18 agreement for such students to be so considered and 

19 for the equitable apportionment among all such 

20 school districts of any amount received by the North 

21 Chicago Community Unit School District 187 under 

22 such section; and 

23 (2) any amount apportioned among all such 

24 school districts pursuant to paragraph (1) is used by 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 12 IH

1 such school districts only for the direct provision of 

2 educational services. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
OMEGA SUBSIDIARIES

1.   Omega Orthodontics of Champaign, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer
     Joel Glovsky - Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

2.   Omega Orthodontics of Colorado, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer
     Joel Glovsky - Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

3.   Omega Orthodontics of Williamsport, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer/Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

4.   Omega Orthodontics of Woodland Hills, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer
     Joel Glovsky - Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

5.   Omega Orthodontics of Goodyear, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer
     Joel Glovsky - Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

6.   Omega Orthodontics of Huntington Beach, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer
     Joel Glovsky - Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

7.   Omega Orthodontics of Reno, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer/Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

8.   Omega Orthodontics of Watertown, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer/Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

9.   Omega Orthodontics of Conyers, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer/Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

10.  Omega Orthodontics of Austin, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer/Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky

11.  Omega Orthodontics of Elko, Inc.

     Officers:
     Robert J. Schulhof - President/Treasurer
     Edward M. Mulherin - Chief Financial Officer/Secretary

     Directors:
     Robert J. Schulhof
     Joel Glovsky
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.10

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                              PRINCIPAL CAPITAL III

         This CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of Principal Capital III (the "Trust"), is
being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a
statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. Code Section
3801 et seq.) (the "Act").

         1. Name. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is
"Principal Capital III."

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is
Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100 North Market Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19890: Attention Corporate Trust Administration.

         3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of
its filing.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust, has executed
this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act.

                                     WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
                                     as Trustee


                                     By: /s/ Joann A. Rozell
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Joann A. Rozell
                                     Title: Financial Services Officer
News United States Air Force
 Luke receives Air Force’s 100th F-35 on heels of IOC announcement, unit activationPublished Aug. 27, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Timothy Boyer
                        
                        
                        56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS)  --**
                The F-35 Lightning II program took another huge step forward Aug. 26 when the Air Force’s 100th F-35, designated AF-100, arrived here following the recent announcement of the fifth-generation jet fighter’s initial operational capability.“This marks a milestone and shows the fact that the F-35 program has continued to grow, progress and support initial operational capability,” said Brig. Gen. Brook Leonard, the 56th Fighter Wing commander. “It is also a ‘scare factor’ for our enemies that we are able to produce such an incredible platform at such a high production rate and that it’s getting out in the field in larger and larger numbers.”Luke Air Force Base received its first F-35 in March 2014 and developed the training and tactics for the program. The fleet has since grown to more than 40 F-35s at the base, including those of partner nations such as Australia and Norway. The base also recently activated its third F-35 unit -- the 63rd Fighter Squadron. “A lot of people put the blood, sweat and tears into making sure we could have an agreement with the community that would allow us to train and continue to produce the future of airpower,” Leonard said. “Standing up the third squadron marks the halfway point as we grow up to six squadrons. It also comes with the heritage of the 63rd, which is incredible, and to be able to see that take new form in the shape of a Lightning aircraft is phenomenal.”   From the first training sortie on May 5, 2014, to the arrival of the first partner-nation F-35 on Dec. 18, 2014, and more recently beginning its first-ever F-35 mission-ready Airmen training class for maintainers, Luke AFB is no stranger to F-35 milestones.“Last year we began U.S. Air Force and partner pilot training at Luke AFB in Arizona, where a blend of U.S. and partner instructor pilots are helping to train U.S. Air Force and other partner pilots,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, F-35 Joint Program Executive Officer, said during an April 26 hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.As Luke AFB continues to perfect F-35 training, the Air Force has moved beyond training with the Aug. 2 announcement of the fighter’s IOC accomplishment.“The Air Force is now receiving F-35As at Hill AFB in Utah,” Bogdan said.With the reception of the 100th F-35, Luke AFB is quickly transitioning to the only active-duty Air Force F-35 training base, providing the world’s greatest F-35 fighter pilots to the new operational squadrons and eventually to combat.“The F-35 is going to be the backbone of the fighter fleet in the United States Air Force and for our partner nations,” Leonard said. “There are going to be more F-35s than any other fighter platform, and all that training starts right here at Luke AFB.”IOC 



Luke AFB 



ACC 



milestone 



F-35