alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 7**

** **

** **

** **

** **

|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|

**StatementRegarding Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**

 

The followingtable sets forth UBS AG’s ratio of earnings to fixed charges on an IFRS basisfor the periods indicated. The ratios are calculated based on earnings from continuingoperations. Ratios of earnings to fixed charges and preferred share dividendsare not presented as there were no mandatory preferred share dividends in anyof the periods indicated.

 

 

|                                             | For the year ended    |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| *CHF  million, except for ratio*                 | **31.12.15**          | 31.12.14 | 31.12.13 | 31.12.12 | 31.12.11 |
| Pre-tax earnings  from continuing operations     | ** **

**5,349** |  

2,424 |  

3,287 |  

(1,851) |  

5,025 |
| Add: Fixed  charges                              | **7,052**             | 7,293 | 8,030 | 10,688 | 11,831 |
| Pre-tax earnings  before fixed charges           | **12,401**            | 9,717 | 11,317 | 8,836 | 16,856 |
| Fixed charges:                                   | ** **            |   |   |   |   |
|       Interest  expense | **6,449**             | 6,639 | 7,351 | 9,990 | 11,143 |
|       Other1            | **603**               | 653 | 679 | 698 | 688 |
| Total fixed  charges                             | **7,052**             | 7,293 | 8,030 | 10,688 | 11,831 |
| **Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges**2         | **1.76**              | 1.33 | 1.41 | 0.833 | 1.42 |

** **

** **

1 Other fixed charges relate to the interestcomponent of rental expense.   2 A ratio of earnings to combinedfixed charges and preference security dividend requirements is not presented asit equals the ratio of earnings to fixed charges.   3 For the year ended31 December 2012, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges was less than 1.00.The amount by which total fixed charges exceeded pre-tax earnings fromcontinuing operations for this period was CHF 1,851 million.

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 11



                           IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                                                August 31,           August 31,
                                                           ----------------------------------------
                                                             2001      2000        2001      2000
                                                           ----------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Net Income                                                 $ 5,359    $   151    $ 9,618    $   872
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding         4,859      4,859      4,859      4,843
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======

Shares used in computation of basic earnings per
    common stock                                             4,859      4,859      4,859      4,843
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock
    warrants after application of treasury stock method          0          0          0          0
                                                           -------    -------    -------    -------

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-diluted      4,859      4,859      4,859      4,843
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======

Basic and diluted earnings per common share                $  1.10    $   .03    $  1.98    $   .18
                                                           =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>


                                       16
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 Power-Save Energy Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Forster, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.

















/s/Michael Forster


By: Michael Forster


Chief Executive Officer





Dated: May 13, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

STATE HUMAN RELATIONS :

COMMISSION ex rel. THEODORA : C.A. No: K13C-01-007 RBY

BUTLER :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: 

MARY FIELD and DELAWARE :

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, :

:

Defendants. :

Submitted: November 19, 2014

Decided: January 14, 2015

Upon Consideration of Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment 

DENIED

ORDER

Oliver J. Cleary, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Plaintiff.

Michael P. Morton, Esquire, Greenville, Delaware for Defendants. 

Young, J.
State Human Rel. Comm. ex. rel. Theodora Butler v. Mary Field, et. al.

C.A. No.: K13C-01-007 RBY

January 14, 2015

2

DECISION 

The facts and arguments presented in this Motion are identical to those

presented in the Motion of Plaintiff Green. Accordingly, this Motion is DENIED

for the same reasons as stated in that Order made this same date and time. 

SO ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2015.

 /s/ Robert B. Young 

 J.

RBY/lmc

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Counsel 

Opinion Distribution

File
584 A.2d 223

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY MILLER.

May 21, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.11




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

2009 CASH BONUS PLAN OF

A. SCHULMAN, INC.




WHEREAS, A. Schulman, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted a cash bonus plan (the “Plan”) for certain
employees on October 17, 2008; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan for compliance with Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as set forth herein.



NOW, THEREFORE, the company hereby amends the Plan, effective as of December 18, 2008, as
follows:



1. The Plan shall be amended by adding the following to the end thereof:



Bonus Payments



Any bonus payment made pursuant to the Plan shall be distributed no later than the
15th day of the third month following the later of (i) the end of the employee’s first
taxable year in which such bonus is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (within
the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)) or (ii)
the end of the first taxable year of the Company in which such bonus is no longer subject to a
substantial risk of forfeiture.



Section 409A of the Code



It is intended that this Plan be exempt from Code Section 409A and the Treasury Regulations
promulgated thereunder, and this Plan will be interpreted, administered and operated accordingly.
Nothing herein shall be construed as an entitlement to or guarantee of any particular tax treatment
to a participant, and none of the Company or any of its affiliates shall have any liability with
respect to any failure to comply with the requirements of Code Section 409A.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is hereby adopted effective as of the date set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	A. SCHULMAN, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Paul F. DeSantis	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Print Name: Paul F. DeSantis	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Its:	 	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	 	 






Date: 12/30/2008
585 A.2d 406

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WALTER F. MURPHY, JR.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Order entered July 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00162-CV

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3, Appellant

V.

JESSICA A. JOHNSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-02205

ORDER

The reporter’s record is past due. After receiving written confirmation from appellant 

that it had paid the fee for preparation of the reporter’s record, we ordered Antonette Reagor, 

Official Court Reporter for the 68th Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record by July 1, 

2016. As of today’s date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. This appeal cannot proceed 

without the reporter’s record.

Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Reagor to file the reporter’s record by JULY 18, 2016. 

We expressly caution Ms. Reagor that failure to comply with this order may result in an order 

that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Martin 

Hoffman, Presiding Judge of the 68th Judicial District Court, Ms. Reagor, and counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,178,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  847,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,120,886
<PP&E>                                     333,745,909
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,984,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             427,519,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,469,960
<BONDS>                                     84,310,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,290
<OTHER-SE>                                 241,563,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               427,519,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,284,070
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,038,998
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,551,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,245,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,245,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,245,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .043
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .044
        

</TABLE>
584 A.2d 217

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GREGORY J. ROSE.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*511, 568 A.2d 545)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50132 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ENRIQUE GOMEZ-SALAZAR, also known as Jessie (Jesus) Bonilla, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-99-CR-227-1

-------------------- October 19, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Enrique Gomez-Salazar appeals his sentence imposed for illegal reentry into the United States following this court’s remand for resentencing. Gomez-Salazar argues that his prior conviction for transporting aliens does not constitute an aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N) and § 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the rule of lenity requires that § 1101(a)(43)(N) be interpreted as not including transporting aliens within theNo. 00-50132 -2- definition of aggravated felony. Gomez-Salazar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda , 190 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 1254 (2000), and states that he is raising the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Monjaras-Castaneda forecloses this argument. Both Gomez-Salazar and the government have filed motions for leave to file supplemental briefs. The motions are granted. Appellant in his supplemental brief argues that the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000) effectively overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). He argues that if Apprendi undermines Almendarez-Torres , his sentence, which was enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), is invalid, and he should be resentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Gomez-Salazar acknowledges that this court does not have the authority to overrule Almendarez-Torres and states that he is raising the issue solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Almendarez-Torres forecloses this argument. AFFIRMED; BOTH PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS GRANTED.
NO. 07-06-0235-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	MARCH 15, 2007

	______________________________

	ALBERT CHARLES KUCINSKI, 

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 17249-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Albert Charles Kucinski appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for manslaughter with a deadly weapon, i.e. a motor vehicle.  Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief in which she has stated that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit.  Included with her brief, is a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response or brief pro se.  By letter dated December 19, 2006, we also notified appellant of his right to tender his own brief or response and set January 18, 2007, as the deadline to do so.  Appellant filed two motions to extend the response deadline which were granted and resulted in an extension to March 8, 2007.  To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief nor another request for extension.  

	In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed  four potential areas for appeal all having to do with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  However, counsel then satisfactorily explained why each argument lacked merit.  We have also conducted our own review of the record, see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and failed to uncover any reversible error.  

	Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 13.2  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 the Annual Report of Cnova N.V. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Germán Quiroga, do certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.  /s/ Germán QuirogaGermán QuirogaCo-Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 31, 2015
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00248- CR

Edd ie Earl Wright, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 676 26, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
E d d ie Earl Wright plead no contest to the offe nse of forg ery by passing , and the trial court assessed punishment at twenty months in state j ail with cre dit for time serve d. See Tex. P enal Code § 32.21.

Wright’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported b y a brief c oncluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brie f mee ts the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by prese nting a p ro fe s sional evaluation of the

rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See id. ; see also Pe nson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. S t a t e , 5 73 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. Stat e , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. Stat e , 485 S.W
. 2 d 553, 553 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1 972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Wright and advis ed h i m of his rig ht to examine the appellaterec ord and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Wright did not file a pro se brief and

did not request an e x tension of time to do so. 1

We have revie wed the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that t he appea l is frivolous, and her motion to withdraw is g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Affir med Filed: August 15, 2013 Do Not Publish

Although he did not file a brief, Wright did fi l e p ro se motions seeking appointment of 1 differ ent appellate counsel, reduc ed sentenc e, and further time cre dit. None of these filings prese nt any appellate issues alleg ing e rror in the trial court’ s judgme nt or pronounce d sentenc e.

2
#### John JOHNSON, et al. v. NURSEFINDERS, INC., et al.

No. 2011-CC-0043.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 12, 2011.

In re National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg Pa.; Nursefinders Inc. et al.; Ray, Harriet Fleming; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, Nos. 04-2500, 2009-6409; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1475.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert B.  Goergen                |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                     |
|   | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | September 9,  2005               |

 

This certification ismade solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledgestandard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
Exhibit 35.1

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2014, (the Agreement), by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as
Depositor; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as , Master Servicer; Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor; Citibank, N.A. as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar and
Authenticating Agent; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Custodian the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities
as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period beginning January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under the Agreements has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreements in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the
undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 28, 2018



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName: Karen MontbachTitle: Managing Director
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1386 

To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending 

of child support incentive payments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. STARK, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Ms. CASTOR, Mr. 

KAGEN, Mr. HALL of New York, and Mr. ELLISON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of 

State spending of child support incentive payments. 

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 ‘‘Child Support Protec5 tion Act of 2007’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1386 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROVISION ENACTED TO END FEDERAL 

2 MATCHING OF STATE SPENDING OF CHILD 

3 SUPPORT INCENTIVE PAYMENTS. 

4 Section 7309 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 

5 is repealed. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS