alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12
 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
(dollars in millions)
 Successor Company
    
    
    Predecessor CompanyYear Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    
    Years EndedDecember 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    

December 26,
    

December 28,
    

December 29,2010
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    2006Pre-tax earnings (loss) (a)
    
    $
    2,708
    
    
    $
    6,455
    
    
    
    $
    (45,438
    )
    
    $
    (13,723
    )
    
    $
    9,313Add: Fixed charges (excludingcapitalized interest and preferredsecurity
dividend requirements ofsubsidiaries)
    
    
    9,935
    
    
    
    12,341
    
    
    
    
    29,641
    
    
    
    51,683
    
    
    
    35,719Pre-tax earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    12,643
    
    
    $
    18,796
    
    
    
    $
    (15,797
    )
    
    $
    37,960
    
    
    $
    45,032Fixed charges:Interest
    
    $
    9,621
    
    
    $
    12,041
    
    
    
    $
    29,349
    
    
    $
    51,425
    
    
    $
    35,499Other (b)
    
    
    314
    
    
    
    300
    
    
    
    
    292
    
    
    
    258
    
    
    
    220Total fixed charges
    
    $
    9,935
    
    
    $
    12,341
    
    
    
    $
    29,641
    
    
    $
    51,683
    
    
    $
    35,719Preferred stock dividend requirements
    
    
    140
    
    
    
    141
    
    
    
    
    4,356
    
    
    
    401
    
    
    
    259Total combined fixed charges
andpreferred stock dividends
    
    $
    10,075
    
    
    $
    12,482
    
    
    
    $
    33,997
    
    
    $
    52,084
    
    
    $
    35,978Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.27
    
    
    
    1.52
    
    
    
    
    *
    
    
    
    *
    
    
    
    1.26Ratio of earnings to combined fixedcharges
and preferred stockdividends
    
    
    1.25
    
    
    
    1.51
    
    
    
    
    *
    
    
    
    *
    
    
    
    1.25
 
 (a)
    
    Excludes undistributed earnings (loss) from equity investments and earnings from discontinued operations.(b)
    
    Other fixed charges consist of the interest factor in rentals, amortization of debt issuance costs and preferred security dividend requirements
of subsidiaries.*
    
    The earnings for the years ended 2008 and 2007 were inadequate to cover total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends.The coverage deficiencies for total fixed charges for the years ended 2008 and 2007 were $45,438 and $13,723, respectively.The coverage deficiencies for total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends for the years ended 2008 and 2007 were $49,794 and $14,124,
respectively.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with
the Annual Report of Miller Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30, 2013
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Angelo Napolitano,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated:   May 26, 2015                                                                 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                                      | 
|/s/  Angelo Napolitano                                                                | 
|Angelo Napolitano
        Chief Executive Officer and
        Chief Financial Officer | 



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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Miller Industries, Inc.
and will be returned by Miller Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                         215
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            8
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   215
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                20
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                16
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  4
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              4
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     4
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0


</TABLE>
10384.

#### Hudson *v.*The State.

Decided June 14, 1919.

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The judge did not err in refusing to charge as requested, or in his rulings on evidence, as complained of in the 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. In the remaining special ground of the motion for a new trial two distinct statements, made by the court to counsel in the presence of the jury, are set out, and the movant “insists that the statements of the court as above set out were error for the following reasons: 1. It was not the law, as the court did not give the defendant the right that he was entitled to being submitted to the jury, that is' carrying a pistol in a sudden emergency. 2. It was prejudicial to defendant’s interest and an opinion of the court.” The first of these “reasons” is not referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, and this part of the ground will be treated as abandoned. The second reason does not point out with sufficient definiteness the error of which complaint is made. Prom it this court can not tell to which of the two “statements” the word “it,” used in this “reason,” refers, or in which of the two “statements” an opinion is claimed to have been expressed, or what that opinion was.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and a new trial was properly refused.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*31Indictment for misdemeanor; from Gilmer superior court— Judge Morris. February 8, 1919.

*Herbert Clay, B. L. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general, William Butt,*contra.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification
Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The
undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, based upon his review of
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2004, of Miller Industries,
Inc. (the Report), that:

| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects
                    the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of and
                    for the periods presented in the Report.
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  November 8, 2004 |  | BY: /S/ Angelo Napolitano
Angelo Napolitano Chief Executive OfficerAnd Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32**

 

**METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC.**

 

**Certification of Periodic Financial ReportPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of MethodeElectronics, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the year ended May 1, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  July 1, 2010 | /s/  Donald W. Duda                    |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                 | Donald  W. Duda                        |
|                 | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
| Dated:  July 1, 2010 | /s/  Douglas A. Koman    |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 | Douglas  A. Koman        |
|                 | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 433

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a minimum credit 

against the alternative minimum tax where stock acquired pursuant 

to an incentive stock option is sold or exchanged at a loss. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. 

RAMSTAD, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. CRANE, Mr. MCINNIS, and Mr. TOM DAVIS

of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

minimum credit against the alternative minimum tax 

where stock acquired pursuant to an incentive stock option is sold or exchanged at a loss.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 433 IH 

1 SECTION 1. MINIMUM CREDIT AGAINST THE ALTERNATIVE 

2 MINIMUM TAX WHERE STOCK ACQUIRED 

3 PURSUANT TO AN INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION 

4 IS SOLD OR EXCHANGED AT A LOSS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 53 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for prior year min7 imum tax liability) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE IN CASE OF INCENTIVE STOCK

10 OPTIONS.—

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount determined 

12 under subsection (c) for any taxable year beginning 

13 after December 31, 2002, shall be not less than the 

14 lesser of—

15 ‘‘(A) the incentive stock option tax, or 

16 ‘‘(B) the greater of $3,000 or 50 percent 

17 of the regular tax for such taxable year. 

18 ‘‘(2) INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION TAX.—For pur19 poses of this subsection, the term ‘incentive stock 

20 option tax’ means the excess (if any) of—

21 ‘‘(A) the aggregate tax imposed by section 

22 55 by reason of section 56(b)(3) for all prior 

23 taxable years with respect to stock if—

24 ‘‘(i) such stock is sold or exchanged 

25 during the taxable year or any prior tax26 able year, and 
3

•HR 433 IH 

1 ‘‘(ii) a loss is recognized on such sale 

2 or exchange for purposes of part VI, over 

3 ‘‘(B) the aggregate increase in the amount 

4 determined under subsection (c) by reason of 

5 this subsection for all prior taxable years.’’

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

8 December 31, 2002.

Æ
Draft – For Discussion Purposes

IOTaB Healthcare Ad-Hoc Group

Overview

• Ad-Hoc Group Members: Maria R., Dan C., Mike B., Ann M.

• Advisor: Barbara C., Brad, Greg (Huntington-Ingalls contract support)

• Kickoff Meeting Held: Fri, Feb 17 12noon-1pm Eastern

• Follow-Up Meeting Held: Apr 13 5-530pm Eastern

• Attendees: Maria R., Barbara C., Ann M.

• Overall Focus Areas for Discussion: Barriers of IOT Adoption, Achieving Overall IOT Value

Ad-Hoc Group Challenges

• Coordinating busy calendars of subcommittee members

• Maria R. and Ann M. were the only two members that joined the Apr 13 follow-up meeting

Report Section Outline

I. Definition of IOMT, IOT

- What’s included but also what’s excluded

- Criticality and triage

- Operational (OT) (air handlers, sterilization) vs. (printers, computers)

II. Cybersecurity and Privacy

III. Asset Inventory & Management

IV. Device Lifecycle Management

V. Validation from Device Manufacturers

VI. Standards Development and Adoption – Connectness, inconsistent UI across devices, algorithms 

and AI

VII. Brand and device change ease

VIII. Station to Bedside to Virtual (Telehealth) to Home to Car/Vehicles

IX. Mobile Apps & Tracker – HIPAA protection

X. Provider Portals

XI. Data Feeds to/from IOMT

XII. B2C, B2B, B2G

XIII. Data at Risk

- Device data, PII, identify and access management, medical, health, genomic, encryption, 

protection, bugs, customer support, technical or access or UI issues, claims

XIV. Education 

- Understanding the device, its purpose and use for consumer, staff, family members

Proposed Speakers for IOTAB Meetings

• Dina Katabi, MIT Professor https://www.linkedin.com/in/dina-katabi-19653a/
• Invited on April 13, 2023 by Ann Mehra. Awaiting response.

Background Material and Readings

CTA 5G Health IoT 

White Paper Dec 2020.pdf

Source: https://shop.cta.tech/products/impact-of-5g-and-iot-on-health-care-and-accessibility

CR Reproductive 

Health Apps A Digital Standard Case Study Aug 2020.pdf

Source: https://digital-lab.consumerreports.org/2020/08/17/reproductive-health-apps-a-digitalstandard-case-study/

CR Peace of Mind 

Mental Health App Privacy Jan 2021.pdf

Source: https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/CR_mentalhealth_fullreport_VF.pdf

MIT Ambient 

Intelligence Healthcare May 2021.pdf

Source: MIT Wireless Lab, Dr. Katabi
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Volmar Construction, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W9I2QR-12-C-0074 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60634, 60635, 61098

Richard T. Garofalo, Esq.

Garity, Graham, Murphy, Garofalo

& Flinn, P.C. East Hanover, NJ Michael P. Goodman, Esq;

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Carlton A. Arnold, Esq. R. Lauren Homer, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. Dated: August 13, 2018

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANos. 60634, 60635, 61098, Appeals of Volmar Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                         and Principal Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2005 ("Report") of Valley Forge Scientific Corp., I, Jerry L. Malis,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Valley Forge
Scientific Corp., hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

      o  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
         (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended,
         and

      o  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Valley Forge Scientific Corp.


Date:  May 13, 2005                  /s/ JERRY L. MALIS
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Jerry L. Malis
                                     President,
                                     Chief Executive Officer, and
                                     Principal Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of the
Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

                                      -40-
May 2003 

Industry Standards versus Legal Requirements 

By: Rick Harshman 

Weights and Measures jurisdictions routinely face the dilemma of enforcing legal 

requirements when an industry or firm utilizes measurement practices contrary to weights 

and measures requirements. Typically, these measurement practices or “special 

tolerances” have been in use for long periods of time and have gone unnoticed or 

unregulated by any presiding weights and measures authority. These practices often perpetuate because a firm turns to other businesses for help in determining “how they do it” 

when, in fact, these “model” firms may fail to conform to legal requirements. In other 

cases, unacceptable practices or tolerances are taken from a voluntary industry standard 

issued by a trade or industry organization that may have been developed without 

consideration of legal requirements. 

Many violations first come to light when a consumer reports a violation to the local 

weights and measures authority. At times, serious violations have occurred throughout 

an entire industry. These violations often cross jurisdictional borders, making it more 

difficult for a single jurisdiction to deal with the problem. As a result, some 

administrators may feel that the problem is beyond the resources of their jurisdiction to 

bring the unacceptable practice under control. Dozens of industry and trade 

organizations, both nationally and internationally, further complicate the issue by 

developing voluntary standards and recommendations that are not always consistent with 

weights and measures laws. 

In 1992, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Laws and 

Regulations (L&R) Committee addressed the subject of industry standards versus legal 

requirements and issued the interpretation that adequate enforcement tools were already 

in place for individual jurisdictions to enforce weights and measures laws and 

regulations. Specifically, the L&R Committee agreed that Sections 15 and 16 of the 

Weights and Measures Law, “Misrepresentation of Quantity” and “Misrepresentation of 

Pricing,” respectively, provide adequate legal controls to eliminate unlawful practices. 

These sections require firms to provide accurate quantity information on the products 

they sell. Firms that use inaccurate measurement practices or measurement devices that 

present quantity information that tends to mislead or deceive buyers operate in violation 

of these provisions. Should industry want the legal standards changed, the Committee 

agreed such changes could be made through appropriate legal channels to amend the 

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulations and the Method of Sale of Commodities 

Regulations or NIST Handbook 133. Tolerances prescribed in industry standards or 

publications do not apply unless they have been adopted or referenced as legal 

requirements. 

The Committee will continue to work with industry and trade associations to provide 

input on industry standard development and seek their involvement in the work of the 

NCWM on issues of mutual concern.