alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12

            GE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


                     NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1998


                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              RATIO OF EARNINGS
                                                                                              TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollar amounts in millions)                                                                 ------------------
<S>                                                                                          <C>
Net earnings .............................................................................         $ 353
Provision for income taxes ...............................................................           209
Minority interest ........................................................................            --
                                                                                                   -----
Earnings before provision for income taxes and minority interest .........................           562
                                                                                                   -----
Fixed charges:
 Interest ................................................................................            68
 One-third of rentals ....................................................................            13
                                                                                                   -----
Total fixed charges ......................................................................            81
                                                                                                   -----
Less interest capitalized, net of amortization ...........................................            --
                                                                                                   -----
Earnings before provision for income taxes and minority interest, plus fixed charges .....         $ 643
                                                                                                   =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .......................................................           7.9
                                                                                                   =====
</TABLE>

For purposes of computing the ratios, fixed charges consist of interest on all
indebtedness and one-third of rentals, which management believes is a
reasonable approximation of the interest factor of such rentals.


                                       11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRACEY WILLIAMS and SKYLA HEARN, )

)

 Plaintiffs, )

)

) Case No. 20-cv-4554

)

v. )

) Honorable Judge Manish Shah

)

DUSABLE MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN )

HISTORY, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

The sole remaining Plaintiff in this matter, Skyla Hearn, through her undersigned attorneys, 

hereby dismisses with prejudice the above-captioned action against the DuSable Museum of 

African American History, Inc., all matters having been resolved between the parties. Except as 

otherwise agreed to, the parties will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: June 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Jemelle D. Cunningham

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Jemelle D. Cunningham

Lad Law Group, P.C.

161 N. Clark Street

Suite 1600

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Case: 1:20-cv-04554 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/04/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:68
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

# DATES:

*Date and Time:*                         Friday, November 21, 2014; 9:30 a.m. EST.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Place:*                         1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.

                        Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at                         *signlanguage@usccr.gov*                         at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Meeting Agenda

This meeting is open to the public.

## I. Approval of Agenda

## II. Program Planning

    - Vote on 2015 Business Meeting Calendar
    Schedule FY 2015 Briefings      ( print page 68212)    
    - Discussion and Vote on Updating the USCCR Anti-Semitism Report
    - Discussion on Staff Report re: St. Louis County, Missouri

## III. Management and Operations

    - CFC Campaign 2015
    - Staff Director's Report

## IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments

    - Alaska
    - Montana
    - New Mexico
    - Wyoming

## V. Adjourn Meeting

Dated: November 10, 2014.

Marlene Sallo,

Staff Director.

[FR Doc. 2014-27063 Filed 11-12-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement of Syneron Medical Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No.
333-120559) pertaining to the employee stock option plans of our report dated June 29,
2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Syneron Medical Ltd. and
subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2005.

|June 29, 2006Haifa, Israel |  | Yours Truly,/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererKOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER A Member of Ernst & Young Global
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CRT Properties, 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 Companys other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b. Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer 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): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Dated: November 8, 2004
    
    /s/ Thomas J. Crocker

Thomas J. Crocker
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
CRT Properties, Inc.
#### Arthur Clement BROOKS, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kathleen BASSETT, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-7547.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

Keith Loren Kimball, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Clement Brooks, Jr., a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Stephen O. Coon v. John Levi Henry and William Sweet.

*Creditor’s MU*— Fraudulent *conveyance to avoid creditor.*

A. judgment creditor’s bill was sustained where the evidence showed that the debtor, who was son-in-law to the other defendant, was able to pay his debt but determined not to pay the judgment, expressed the purpose to put the land in his father-in-law’s hands to prevent its collection, and after the conveyance gave a witness to understand that had been the object; and farther tended to show that the father-in-iaw aided this course with knowledge of its design.

Appeal from St. Clair.

Submitted June 23.

Decided October 11.

Creditor’s bill. Complainant appeals.

Reversed: decree entered.

*A. It. Avery*and *Levi L. Wixson*for complainant.

*S. W. Vance*and *O'Brien J. Athmson*for defendants.

Cooley, J.

This is a judgment creditor’s bill, the object of which is to reach certain lands which it is alleged Henry^. the judgment debtor, conveyed to Sweet, the other defendant, without consideration and with the purpose to defraud the complainant.

Only questions of fact are involved. The existence of the debt, the ownership of the land by Henry, and the conveyance to Sweet shortly before judgment was obtained are admitted. The evidence on both sides shows that Henry must have been entirely able to pay the debt if so disposed, and he claims to have had personal property from which the officers might have collected it. There is evidence, however, which is convincing to us that he determined not to pay the judgment, and his dealings with his property are consequently subject to some suspicion. The important question is whether Sweet was privy to this purpose, and lias been assistant in it.

*209Sweet is father-in-law to Henry. There is evidence that Henry expressed the purpose to put the land in his hands to prevent the collection of this debt, and that after the conveyance he gave a witness to understand that had been the object. Henry denies this, but not to our satisfaction. There is also evidence that Sweet said he would do all he could to prevent the claim being paid. This he denies, but says he expressed a purpose to assist Henry in getting out of debt. In the same connection he denies having known of this debt when he took the conveyance, denies having known of the execution when it was out, denies having ever talked with Henry about this judgment, and affirms his belief that Henry had sufficient personal property liable to execution to satisfy it. He makes showing of an apparent paying for the land, but it is as easy to do that when the purpose is not *bona fide*as when it is.

A careful reading of the evidence does not impress us that this transaction is one that the law can sanction. We think the complainant made out a *prima facie*case, which the defendants have not satisfactorily met. An analysis of the voluminous and conflicting evidence can answer no good purpose, and we content ourselves with directing that the decree appealed from be reversed, and decree entered in this court for the complainant with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15 May 4, 2004 Koger Equity, Inc.
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 200
Boca Raton, Florida 33432 We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
interim financial information of Koger Equity, Inc. and subsidiaries for
the three month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in
our report dated May 4, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on such financial information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-55179 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-54617 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-54621 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-54765 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-33388 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-38712 of
Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-8. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
Registration Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a
report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
West Palm Beach, Florida
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00369

Honorable Martha M. Pacold

Martin A Crossley

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 26, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Jury trial summary

outline is attached. (rao, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 15.1

November 14, 2002

Vornado Operating Company
New York, New York

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Vornado Operating Company for the periods ended September 30,
2002 and 2001, as indicated in our report dated November 14, 2002; because we
did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-68458 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-77143 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
9735.

#### ROBINSON *v.*WOODRUFF MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CO.

Decided February 12, 1919.

1. Defects in machinery purchased were no ground for defense to an action on promissory notes for the purchase-money, where a written agreement between the parties, made at the time of the execution of the notes, provided that no complaint should be made by the purchaser after being in possession of the machinery thirty days, and he was in possession of it thirty days under the contract, and it did not appear that he made any complaint as to the machinery during that time.

2. The request to award damages against the plaintiff in error, as provided by the Civil Code, § 6213, for bringing the case to this court for delay, is denied.

Complaint; from city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. April • 9,1918.

*427*J. W. Powell,*for plaintiff in error. *W. R. Smith,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. J. M. Robinson gave to Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company three notes for the purchase-price of certain machinery. Title to the property was reserved in the vendor. Robinson signed a separate agreement of even date with the notes, containing the terms and conditions of the sale, one clause of which is as follows: “It is hereby agreed and understood by both iessor and lessee that no complaint shall be made by the lessee after he has been in the possession of the machinery thirty days.” Robinson haying failed to pay the notes, an attachment against him was issued and levied on the property, and a declaration in attachment filed. Robinson filed a plea in which he admitted signing the notes, but denied indebtedness, and alleged fraud and failure of consideration. The case proceeded to trial, and a verdict in favor of plaintiff was directed by the court. The bill of exceptions assigns error upon the direction of the verdict, and upon the' overruling of a motion for new trial, which was based on the general grounds. There was no plea and no evidence that Robinson made complaint of any kind in reference to the machinery prior to having been in possession thereof for thirty days. Under numerous decisions of ■our courts of last resort, under the clause of the contract above quoted, notice before the expiration of the thirty days was a condition precedent to recovery 'by the defendant, and the trial judge properly directed the verdict and overruled the motion for new trial. See *Ducros*v. *Peoples Drug Store,*21 *Ga. App.*636*(b)*(94 S. E. 897); *City of Moultne*v. *Scofield’s Sons Co.,*6 *Ga. App.*464 (4) (65 S. E. 315); *Brooks Lumber Co.*v. *Case Threshing Machine Co.,*136 *Ga.*754 (2) (72 S. E. 40); *Walker*v. *Malsby Co.,*134 *Ga.*399 (67 S. E. 1039); *Fay & Eagan Co.*v. *Dudley,*129 *Ga.*314 (58 S. E. 826); *International Harvester Co.*v, *Dillon,*126 *Ga.*672 (55 S. E. 1034); *Beasley*v. *Huyett & Smith Mfg. Co.,*92 *Ga.*273 (18 S. E. 420).

2. Not being fully convinced that this case was brought to this court for delay only, the request to award 10 per cent, damages against the plaintiff in error, as provided by § 6213 of the Civil Code of 1910, is denied.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 10.6 - SEC Documents
                                                                        ANNEX VI
                                                                              TO
                                                   SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT


                             COMPANY'S SEC DOCUMENTS

          1. See schedule of documents available on EDGAR below.

          2. Other: NONE


                          Documents Available on EDGAR


Annual  Report on Form 10K-SB for the fiscal year ended  December 31,  2003,  as
filed with the SEC on April 19, 2004

Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
         February 3, 2004
         February 18, 2004
         April 5, 2004

Amended Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on March 5, 2004

Preliminary Information Statement on Form 14C filed with the SEC on May 13, 2004