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


THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY

Computation of Ratio Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)


	 Twelve Months
	    Ended
	December 31,1996

Net Income	$ 119,147

Income Taxes	   72,813
	$ 191,960



Fixed Charges:
	Interest	$ 50,937
	Amortization of Debt Discount,
		Expense and Premium	1,610
	Rentals	  34,470
			$ 87,017



Earnings Before Income Taxes
	and Fixed Charges	$278,977



Ratio of Earning to Fixed Charges	    3.21 x
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(d)



                     WILLIAMS HOLDINGS OF DELAWARE, INC.

              SCHEDULE II--VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS(a)*



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                Additions
                                                                         -----------------------
                                                                          Charged
                                                                          to Costs
                                                          Beginning         and                                           Ending
                                                           Balance        Expenses     Other(c)       Deductions(b)      Balance
                                                           -------        --------     --------       -------------      -------
                                                                                      (Millions)
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>         <C>                <C>            <C>  
Year ended December 31, 1997:
   Allowance for doubtful accounts-
      Receivables......................................    $ 10.5          $ 13.3      $ 7.0(c)           $ 10.1         $ 20.7
      Other assets ....................................       4.6              --           --                --            4.6

Year ended December 31, 1996:
   Allowance for doubtful accounts-
      Receivables......................................      11.8             5.3        1.4(c)              8.0           10.5
      Other assets.....................................       1.6             3.0           --                --            4.6

Year ended December 31, 1995:
   Allowance for doubtful accounts-
      Receivables......................................       9.5             4.1        1.5(c)              3.3           11.8
      Other assets.....................................        --             1.6           --                --            1.6
</TABLE>

----------

(a) Deducted from related assets.
(b) Represents balances written off, net of recoveries and reclassifications.
(c) Primarily relates to acquisitions of businesses.
 *  Restated to reflect the acquisition of MAPCO Inc., which has been 
    accounted for as a pooling of interests.
Exhibit 11


                                 MGI PROPERTIES

                       Computation of Net Income Per Share
                             Assuming Full Dilution

                             Year ended November 30,

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  1996         1995         1994          1993           1992
<S>                           <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>          <C>

Net income                   $24,305,000   $14,319,000   $14,491,000   $ 7,957,000   $7,248,000
                              ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding   11,540,972    11,487,677    11,450,451    10,574,104    9,402,476

Additional number of share
  equivalents assuming
  exercise of options            180,257        82,408        91,834        55,312       20,274
                              ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------    ---------

Weighted average number of
  shares assuming full
  dilution                    11,721,229    11,570,085    11,542,285    10,629,416    9,422,750
                              ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    =========

Net income per share assuming
  full dilution                  $ 2.07       $ 1.24         $ 1.26     $ .75         $ .77
                                   ====         ====           ====       ===           ===
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors:
Modern Controls, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-42255, 33-49752, and 33-58789) on Form S-8 of Modern Controls, Inc. of our
reports dated February 19, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Modern Controls, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows and related financial statement schedule
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which
reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998,
annual report on Form 10-K of Modern Controls, Inc.

                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 29, 1999
Description of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.27 
  
 Description of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors 
  
 The description below contains only certain information regarding the compensation of the non-employee directors of Sunterra Corporation.
Additional information can be found in our proxy statements, reports, and other exhibits filed by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  
 Effective with the first quarter of fiscal 2005, each non-employee director of Sunterra Corporation is entitled to an annual retention fee of $30,000 in addition to a fee
of $1,250 per in person meeting of the board of directors, a fee of $1,250 for the annual meeting and a fee of $750 per telephonic meeting of the board of directors. An additional annual fee of $4,000 is paid to non-employee directors for each
committee membership, a fee of $500 per meeting of the committee and an additional $5,000 for serving as the chairman of any committee (except for the audit committee chairman who receives $10,000). The non-executive chairman is also entitled to an
annual fee of $15,000 (increased to $30,000 per annum effective October 1, 2005). Each non-employee director is also entitled to an annual grant of stock-based compensation equivalent to $40,000 to be issued in advance on the first day of the fiscal
year. 
  
 A director who is also an employee of Sunterra Corporation does not
receive additional compensation for service as a director. 
  
 Sunterra
Corporation pays for or reimburses its directors’ travel, lodging and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attendance at board, committee and stockholder meetings, and for other reasonable expenses related to board service
such as continuing education.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

              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 Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.


/s/ Terrence P. Sullivan
-----------------------------
Terrence P. Sullivan
General Partner
(Performing similar functions of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer)

Date: May 9, 2003
PMI Fully-Toleranced Test Case 8 - View A

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 66, 90

 Models - 2014

Rev C

nist_ftc_08_asme1_rc

SPECIFIED):

EV. __ IS REQUIRED

EFINITION.

MENSIONS AND

D ON THE DRAWING

DIMENSIONAL DATA

BTAIN ALL OTHER

THE MODEL. THE

C DIMENSIONAL DATA

FIED.

TO DATASET.

 TO DIMENSIONING

TO ALL

S.

ANCING

NED AS

CATED.

AGAINST

OR A.

 B

RE

N

Feature and Specification Index

nist_ftc_08_asme1_rc_fsi.pdf
PMI Fully-Toleranced Test Case 8 - View B

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 68, 76, 94

 Models - 2014

Rev C

nist_ftc_08_asme1_rc
PMI Fully-Toleranced Test Case 8 - View C

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 54

 Models - 2014

Rev C

nist_ftc_08_asme1_rc
PMI Fully-Toleranced Test Case 8 - View D

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 76, 77, 99

 Models - 2014

Rev C

nist_ftc_08_asme1_rc
OSAC

ORGANIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC AREA COMMITTEES FOR FORENSIC SCIENCE

 

February 11, 2020

Administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science is a collaborative body of more than 550+ forensic science practitioners 

and other experts representing all levels of the government, academia, and industry. Together, these members 

have expertise in a broad array of forensic science disciplines as well as scientific research, measurement science, 

statistics, law, and policy.

OSAC is working to strengthen forensic practice through improved standards. To do this, we:

• Facilitate the development of technically sound, science-based standards through a formal 

standard developing organization (SDO) process.

• Evaluate existing standards published by SDOs for placement on the OSAC Registry.

• Promote the use of the OSAC Registry approved standards throughout the forensic science 

community.

The Organic Gunshot Residue Task Group has developed a standard practice for the collection and analysis of 

organic gunshot residues. We invite you to participate in an inter-laboratory round of testing of the OSAC 

approved standard practice for organic gunshot residues. This OSAC Task Group will provide the standard which 

contains methodologies for gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry (LC/MS) analyses of organic gunshot residues as well as a sample to be analyzed. The OSAC Task 

Group will also provide a detailed set of instructions on data generation, submission guidelines and criteria. 

If you are willing to participate in the study and are ready to receive your study acknowledgement forms, the draft 

standard and the analytical sample, please submit your name and contact information (email and telephone 

number) to Jesse Brown (jesse.d.brown50.civ@mail.mil). 

To learn more about the interest in conducting organic gunshot residue in an operational setting, we encourage 

you to complete this short survey. 

We thank you for your interest in this important study and hope that you will consider participating in validating 

the organic gunshot residue analysis standard.

Dr. Candice Bridge

Task Group Chair

Organic Gunshot Residue Task Group

Gunshot Residue Subcommittee

Chemistry/Elemental Analysis Scientific Area Committee
#### First National Bank of Louisville *v.*Clayton L. Carter.

Homestead — Sale—Estoppel of Purchaser.

In an execution sale of land, the vendor knows what he is selling and the purchaser knows what he is buying, so the debtor cannot Be estopped to assert a homestead right where he did not consent to the sale or induce .the purchaser to buy.

APPEAL FROM CASEY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 7, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

It was the duty of the sheriff when, levying the execution in favor of the appellant, or before the sale under it, to have caused to be set apart to the appellee so much of the land as did not exceed in value $1,000. The failure of that officer ten comply with the requirements of the statute, or the defendant in the execution to demand that it should be done, is no waiver of the latter’s right to the exemption. It was more the duty of the plaintiff in the execution to have this duty discharged than that of the appellee, as the homestead was, not subject to sale, or at least no title could pass without the consent of the owner and occupier, as provided by the statute; and the purchaser, when he buys, is presumed to know that the debtor cannot, by the mere sale, be deprived of his homestead. There can be no estoppel, as the purchaser knows what he is purchasing and the officer what he is, selling. A case might possibly exist where the debtor, by inducing the purchaser to buy, might be estopped from, asserting his claim,, but for the fact that the exemption is as- much for his' family as himself. The statute requires the waiver to be in writing, signed by the husband and wife, etc.; the *487wife being dead does not deprive the husband and his children of the benefits of this, law, as they are as much entitled to' the exemption as the wife and mother. Nor does the execution exist as an estoppel, and it can only be regarded as an agreement on the part of the debtor to pay that amount for the interest the appellant acquired in the land by his purchase under the execution. There was no sale of the land to James Carter, and if there was, James Carter only released his claim: upon it without any consideration whatever. The appellant paid Carter nothing for the whole, and it operated only as a dismissal of the equity suit, thereby enabling the appellant to sell the land under execution.

*Durham, Jacobs, Miller, for appellant. '*

*Hill & Alcorn, for appellee.*

The judgment affirmed.
First Responder Location Technology

Proposed Solution Architecture
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville, TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax

 

May 13, 2011

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Donald C. Ewigleben, President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011 which this certification accompanies 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/* Donald C. Ewigleben                                          |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald   C. Ewigleben                                              |   |
| President,   Chief Executive Officer   and Chief Operating Officer |   |
| May 13,   2011                                                |   |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald Mustari, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Whitehall Limited, Inc. certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.     The registrants other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
covered by this quarterly 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 control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrants other certifying officers 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

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.

Date: November 12, 2003

| |  |                                                      
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ronald Mustari                                   
| |  |                                                      
| |  | Ronald Mustari, President and
Chief Executive Officer
Ruby Tuesday, IncUnaudited Computation of Ratio of Consolidated Earnings to Fixed Charges(Dollar Amounts in Millions)



Fiscal Year EndedJune 2, 2009
        June 3, 2008
        June 5, 2007
        June 6, 2006
        May 31, 2005
        June 1, 2004Earnings before fixed charges:Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
        
        $   (42.9)
        $   23.7
        $  132.4
        $  151.0
        $  154.9
        $  170.5Add equity in losses (deduct equity in earnings) of equity interest
        
        -
        3.5
        1.3
        (0.9)
        (2.7)
        (5.9)Distribution of earnings from equity investees
        
        -
        -
        0.8
        0.8
        0.9
        0.4Less Capitalized interest
        
        0.5
        (0.2)
        (1.0)
        (1.8)
        (1.8)
        (1.5)(42.4)
        27.0
        133.5
        149.1
        151.3
        163.5Fixed charges:Interest expense
        
        35.1
        33.6
        23.9
        18.0
        10.4
        9.9Interest portion of rent expense
        
        15.7
        16.4
        13.8
        11.8
        10.2
        7.5Debt issuance amortization
        
        1.9
        0.7
        0.4
        0.5
        0.7
        0.6Total fixed charges
        
        52.7
        50.7
        38.1
        30.3
        21.3
        18.0Adjusted earnings from continuing operations before income taxesavailable to cover fixed charges
        
        $    10.3
        $   77.7
        $  171.6
        $  179.4
        $  172.6
        $  181.5Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*
        
        0.20
        1.53
        4.50
        5.92
        8.10
        10.08Amount by which earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges
        
        (42.4)
        N/A
        N/A
        N/A
        N/A
        N/A


* We are presenting the ratio above solely pursuant to the requirement set forth in Item 503 of Regulation S-K.  The earnings and fixed charges
in the above ratio are calculated using the definitions as set for by Regulation S-K.
Exhibit 32.1





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





I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Quarterly Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2)
information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc.





Date: May 11, 2011By:
/s/ James W. BernauName:
James W. BernauTitle:
Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. and will be retained by Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Willamette Valley Vineyards, Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

OLIVER S. STEEL

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1851

[ September 6 , 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Edward Harold

Merrigan , Judge; L.T. Case No. 89 26582CF10B

.

Oliver S. Steel, Bushnell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, M AY and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.