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

EXHIBIT 12 - COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (IN THOUSANDS
EXCEPT RATIO)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      2000        2001        2002       2003         2004
                                                      ----        ----        ----       ----         ----
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS:
  - Net Earnings from continuing operations before
  income taxes                                       $ 2,210    $  8,678   $   5,761   $  13,807   $   21,669
  - Plus fixed charges                                 3,486       3,095       2,243       4,099        5,138
  - Plus amortization of capitalized interest            270         331         376         451          488
  - Less capitalized interest                         (1,276)       (429)       (314)       (525)        (258)
                                                     -------    --------   ---------   ---------   ----------
  Total earnings                                     $ 4,690    $ 11,675   $   8,066   $  17,832   $   27,037

COMPUTATION OF FIXED CHARGES:
  - Interest expense and capitalized interest        $ 2,489    $  2,147   $     868   $   2,397   $    1,863
  - Plus amortized premiums, discounts and
  capitalized expenses related to indebtedness           466         438         221         548        1,943
  - Plus an estimate of the interest within rental
  expense                                                457         469       1,139       1,154        1,332
  - Plus preference security dividends                    74          41          15           -            -
                                                     -------    --------   ---------   ---------   ----------
  Total fixed charges                                $ 3,486    $  3,095   $   2,243   $   4,099   $    5,138

RATIO OF TOTAL EARNINGS TO TOTAL FIXED CHARGES          1.35        3.77        3.60        4.35         5.26
                                                     =======    ========   =========   =========   ==========
</TABLE>
exhibit1025.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





Exhibit 10.25

Technical Services Agreement

[Chinese translation]

Between: EcoloCap Solutions Canada Inc. (EcoloCap)

740 St Maurice suite 102 

Montreal QC H3C 1L5

Tel: 0015148763907              Fax: 0015148764080

And

LESHAN KINGSSUN GROUP CO., LTD. (“KINGSSUN”) 

[Chinese translation]

Address:

[Chinese translation]



Telephone: 13881323888

Fax: 0833-4677818   Email [Chinese translation]

General manager [Chinese translation]  / Wang chun hua

Re: Technical services for CDM project: Huangdan Hydro-station 

Technical Expansion & Automation Retrofit [Chinese translation]

Whereby EcoloCap Solutions (Canada) Inc. will perform for LESHAN KINGSSUN GROUP CO., LTD. (“KINGSSUN”) 

necessary technical services for the validation of its CDM projects.

[Chinese translation]

In consideration of these services rendered as well as expenses incurred, EcoloCap shall be paid by KINGSSUN professional fees 

for this project and EcoloCap shall be paid a fee for its services which is calculated as follows: 

[Chinese translation]

Amount paid = 12% x Net Revenues from CER [Chinese translation]

Net Revenues = Total validated quantity of CER multiplied by 9 Euro – 50,000 Euro (First year) [Chinese translation]

Net Revenues = Total validated quantity of CER multiplied by 9.5 Euro (following years) [Chinese translation]






EcoloCap shall be responsible for the preparation of these technical documents (PIN, PDD, etc.) and shall make best efforts to assist 

KINGSSUN in the approval processes these projects by local authorities as well as by the DOE and the EB. All the expenses incurred 

above will be borne by EcoloCap. 

[Chinese translation]

EcoloCap shall make best effort to help KINGSSUN to get financial participation of foreign investors in the Project.

[Chinese translation]

KINGSSUN shall pay EcoloCap the total amount of the above mentioned fee within working days after receiving the payment from EcoloCap 

of the sale of the CERs generated by this project.

[Chinese translation]

We agree to the above and acknowledge receiving a copy of this agreement. [Chinese translation]

Dated this 23rd day of October 2008 

[Chinese translation]

EcoloCap Solutions (Canada) Inc.







Per: DR. TRI VU TRUONG 

Dr. Tri Vu Truong 

President & CEO



LESHAN KINGSSUN GROUP CO., LTD. (“KINGSSUN”) 

[Chinese translation]







Per: WANG CHUN HUA 

Mr. Wang chun hua 

General Manager
627 A.2d 1128

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROY CARR, JR.

March 17, 1993.

ORDER

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvideritly granted; it is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MELITA INTERNATIONAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         35,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,282
<CGS>                                           14,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,749
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,749
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,749
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6500

TIMOTHY CLIFTON EVANS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00558-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Clifton Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Clifton Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 

Evans 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 presented 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  Name of Subsidiary                                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                  ------------------                                   -----------------------------
                  <S>                                                  <C>
                  Melita Finance Corporation                           Delaware
                  Melita Intellectual Property,  Inc.                  Delaware
                  Inventions, Inc.                                     Georgia
                  Melita de Mexico, S. de R.L.de C.V.                  Mexico
                  Support Groups, S. de R.L.de C.V.                    Mexico
                  Melita Europe Limited                                United Kingdom
                  Melita International FSC, Ltd.                       Barbados
</TABLE>


                                                                        51
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32 626

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Ja cob L. B RINGARD Airman Basic (E

- 1 ), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 27 March 20 20

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Andrew R. Norton

. S entence : Sentence adjudged on 1 October 2019 by SpCM convened at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Sentence entered by military judge on 30 October 2019: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 44 days , and a reprimand

. For Appellant: Major Rodrigo M. Car u ç o , USAF. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Brian C. Mason , USAF

. Before MINK , LEWIS, and D. JOHNSON , Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Pr actice and Procedure 30 .4.

________________________ PER CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. *

* After the court

- martial adjourned, the military judge signed a Statement of Trial (Footnote continues on next page)United States v. Bringard , No. ACM S32 626

2 Articles 59(a) and 66( d ), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866 ( d )

. Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accord ingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

Resu l ts (STR) and inserted it into the record of trial in accordance with R ule for Courts

Martial (R. C.M.) 1101(a). T he rule lists a number of required contents, including inter alia “the command by which [the court

- martial] was convened.” R.C.M. 1101(a)(3). The STR in this case included most of the required contents, and it indicated the squadron and maj or command to which Appellant was assigned, but it omitted the command which convened the court

- martial. United States v. Moody

- Neukom , No. ACM S32594, 2019 CCA L EXIS 521 , at * 2

– 3 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Dec. 2019) (unpub. op

. )

. However, we find no colorable showing of possible prejudice from this minor omission, see United States v. Scalo , 60 M.J. 435, 436

– 37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing United States v. Kho , 54 M.J. 63, 65 (C.A.A.F. 2000)), and we do not find it necessary to direct c orrective action pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(d)(2)

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted for the consolidated
financial statements of South Carolina Community Bancshares, Inc. for the
quarter ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             135
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,885
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,134
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,163
<LOANS>                                         35,475
<ALLOWANCE>                                        293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,919
<DEPOSITS>                                      33,500
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                530
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,881
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  45,919
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    748
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   70
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    68
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   886
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 419
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 419
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                               14
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    224
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         224
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.89
<LOANS-NON>                                        594
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   293
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  293
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               293
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. S.A.B., a Child, Respondent. State of Florida, Petitioner, v. J.C.C., a Child, Respondent.

Nos. 5D10-3777, 5D10-4335.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 22, 2011.

*1161Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.

Jeanette Dejuras Bigney of Jeanette Dejuras Bigney, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent S.A.B.

Tad Á. Yates of the Law Offices of Tad A. Yates, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent J.C.C.

PER CURIAM.

We consolidate these appeals and affirm.1 In both cases, the lower courts sealed juvenile court records upon motions filed pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2010) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692. The State’s challenge in each case is directed to those portions of the orders that seal juvenile court records. Although statutory authority exists to seal judicial and non-judicial records of a “minor or an adult,” the State contends that, pursuant to *Johnson v. State,*336 So.2d 93 (Fla.1976), the control of court records is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary. Because there is not a juvenile rule of procedure pertaining to the sealing of juvenile court records, the State contends that the lower courts erred in doing so. The State makes no challenge on substantive grounds.2

Although the rules of criminal procedure do not generally pertain to juvenile proceedings, rule 3.692 is expressly applicable to “all” petitions to seal or expunge. Even if rule 3.692 is not applicable, the trial court has the authority to utilize this procedure in the absence of a conflicting rule. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vii).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.

1

. Although we had initially ordered that both appeals proceed as Petitions for Certiorari, we recede from those orders and treat both proceedings as direct appeals.

2

. The State only argues that juvenile court records need not be sealed because the proceedings are confidential.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1640 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1640

 To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious 
                 behavior to law enforcement agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2007

Mr. Pearce (for himself, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Kline of 
Minnesota, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
  Westmoreland, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. McCotter, and Mr. McKeon) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious 
                 behavior to law enforcement agencies.

    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 ``Protecting Americans Fighting 
Terrorism Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO REPORT SUSPICIOUS 
              BEHAVIOR.

    (a) In General.--An individual shall not be liable for any injury 
or damages relating to such individual's qualified disclosure of 
suspicious behavior. A civil action for damages related to such 
disclosure may not be brought in any State or Federal court.
    (b) Qualified Disclosure of Suspicious Behavior.--For purposes of 
this section, the term ``qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior'' 
means any disclosure of the allegedly suspicious behavior of another 
individual or individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
agency or other security personnel that is made in good faith and with 
the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious.
                                 <all>
```
#### Abraham Ben YISRAEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 2, 2011.

*708Abraham Ben Yisrael, Okeechobee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Myra J. Fried, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order that denied appellant’s motion for return of property. Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant raising this issue in a facially sufficient motion to return property.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Marcus JACKSON.

No. 2011-KK-0692.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 492-950; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1774.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Darrell ST. JULIEN, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0602.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re St. Julien Jr., Darrell; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 62872; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01284.

Denied.
#### Deborah F. PARKER v. OAKLEIGH APARTMENTS, LLC, Mitchell Management, Inc. of Alabama, Mitchell Management, Inc., and Scottsdale Insurance Company.

No. 2012-CC-0477.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Parker, Deborah F.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedí*1252al Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 586,598; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1746.

Denied.
#### REDAR, LLC, et al. v. Warren D. RUSH, et al.

No. 2010-C-2784.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Rader Family Qualified Personal Residence Trust; Rader Sr., Norris; Rader, Patsy Marsalis; Redar LLC et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Palish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 108,435, 109,644; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 09-1417, 10-46.

Denied.
#### Terrell LADNER, individually, and as tutor of his minor daughter, Ashleigh Ladner, and Mary Anne Ladner v. Dr. Arthur CAIRE, Dr. Deborah Pickens and St. Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 d/b/a Slidell Memorial Hospital, and Dr. Candice Collins.

No. 2011-CC-1224.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Ladner, Terrell et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 1994-13484; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0419.

Denied.