alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                 Three Months ended
                                                          Years ended Dec. 31                         March 31
                                     --------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------
                                       1999        2000        2001        2002       2003        2003        2004
                                     --------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------
                                               (IN THOUSANDS OF CANADIAN DOLLARS)
<S>                                  <C>           <C>        <C>          <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>

EARNINGS:

   Earnings before income taxes        20,305      30,278     (27,795)        953     37,197     15,420         941

   Fixed charges                       24,831      25,938      26,945      26,229     26,011      5,932       5,138
                                     --------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------

TOTAL EARNINGS                         45,136      56,216        (850)     27,182     63,208     21,352       6,079
                                     ========================================================  ======================

FIXED CHARGES:

   Interest expense                    23,578      24,685      25,888      25,310     20,977      5,702       4,974
   Amortization of deferred
     financing costs                    1,253       1,253       1,057         919      5,034        230         164
                                     --------------------------------------------------------  ----------------------

TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                    24,831      25,938      26,945      26,229     26,011      5,932       5,138

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES        1.8         2.2          (0)        1.0        2.4        3.6         1.2
                                     ========================================================  ======================

</TABLE>
#### Alan B. Wilk et al., Respondents, v Elaine Guthrie, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 571]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered July 3, 2012, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion *989for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The conflicting deposition testimony submitted in support of the motion revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred, and whether the defendant created the condition which caused the accident (see *Willis v Galileo Cortlandt, LLC,*106 AD3d 730 [2013]; *Gagliardo v Orton,*95 AD3d 1275 [2012]; *Silverman v Johnson,*94 AD3d 860, 861 [2012]; *Molloy v Waldbaum, Inc.,*72 AD3d 659, 660 [2010]). Since the defendant thus failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not examine the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; *Veltri v Solomon,*107 AD3d 699, 700 [2013]). Eng. P.J., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

(EXTENDICARE LOGO)

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 6, 2003

Extendicare Announces Third Quarter News Release and Conference Call Dates

MARKHAM, ONTARIO (TSX: EXE and EXE.A; NYSE: EXE.A). Extendicare Inc. will
release its 2003 third quarter financial results after the close of markets on
Thursday, November 6, 2003. The Company will hold a conference call on Friday,
November 7, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. (EDST) to discuss its results for the third
quarter.

The toll-free number for the call is 1-800-273-9672. Local callers please dial
416-695-5806.

For those unable to listen to the call live, a taped rebroadcast will be
available from two hours after completion of the live call on November 7, 2003
until midnight on November 21, 2003. To access the rebroadcast, dial
1-800-408-3053. Local callers please dial 416-695-5800. The conference ID
number is 1482030. An archived recording of the call will also be available on
Extendicares Website www.extendicare.com

Scheduled speakers for the Company on the conference call include: Mel
Rhinelander, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mark Durishan,
Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer; and Philip Small, Senior
Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Investor Relations.

Extendicare, through its subsidiaries, operates 276 long-term care facilities
across North America, with capacity for 29,000 residents. As well, through its
operations in the United States, Extendicare offers medical specialty services
such as subacute care and rehabilitative therapy, while home health care
services are provided in Canada. The Company employs 36,400 people in the
United States and Canada.

For further information, contact:

Jillian Fountain
Corporate Secretary
Telephone: (905) 470-5534
Fax: (905) 470-4003

Visit Extendicares Website @ www.extendicare.com
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Bailey, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[963 NYS2d 886]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered June 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). That valid waiver forecloses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convict*1360ing him upon a jury verdict of failing to register internet identifiers as a sex offender (Correction Law §§ 168-f [4]; 168-t). As part of his plea bargain with respect to the conviction that is the subject of appeal No. 1, defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction in appeal No. 2. Thus, defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal in appeal No. 1 encompassed his right to appeal his conviction in appeal No. 2. That valid waiver forecloses our review of his contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Allick,*72 AD3d 1615, 1616 [2010]; *People v Dickerson,*309 AD2d 966, 967 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 596 [2004]), his challenges to various rulings made by County Court during trial *(see Allick,*72 AD3d at 1616), his challenges to the court’s suppression ruling *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), and his challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see generally Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255). Finally, to the extent that defendant contends that the sentence imposed is illegal, that contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]). We conclude, however, that the sentence is legal.

Present—Centra, J.E, Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    NOVEMBER 19, 2004
 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION 
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
  CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    NOT APPLICABLE(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerof incorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
  
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
  Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below):  o
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17
CFR 230.425)  o
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)  o
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))  o
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 1.01.
    Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement On November 19, 2004, the registrant issued a press release (the Press
Release), attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, announcing, among other things,
that Nortel Networks Limited (the registrants principal direct operating
subsidiary) obtained a new waiver from Export Development Canada (EDC), the
terms and conditions of which are summarized in the Press Release which is
incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the letter agreement containing
the waiver and related amendments to the EDC Support Facility (as defined in
the Press Release) is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.2.  Item 9.01
    Financial Statements and Exhibits (c)
    
    Exhibits99.1
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on November 19, 2004.99.2
    
    Letter Agreement dated November 19, 2004 between Nortel Networks Limited
and EDC.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.  NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/   William R. KerrWilliam R. KerrChief Financial OfficerBy:

/s/   Gordon
A. DaviesGordon
A. DaviesAssistant Secretary Dated:   November 19, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on November 19, 2004.99.2
    
    Letter Agreement dated November 19, 2004 between Nortel Networks Limited
and EDC.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the inclusion in this Registration Statement of Henry Birks & Sons
Inc. on Form F-4 of our report dated June 6, 2003 (June 22, 2005 as to the
effects of Note B), relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Mayor's Jewelers, Inc. for the year ended March 29, 2003. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus,
which is part of this Registration Statement.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Miami, FL
July 27, 2005
Exhibit 35.2

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-SA2 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys report on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi    
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi        
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President
#### Gloria L. Ramirez, Appellant, v Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc., Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 572]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated December 19, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries while participating in a step aerobics class at the defendant’s fitness center. Frior to the subject incident, the plaintiff had participated in at least 34 step aerobic classes at the defendant’s facility and approximately 100 to 150 step aerobics classes in other facilities. The plaintiff commenced the instant action, and the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” *(Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; *see Stach v Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist.*106 AD3d 720, 721 [2013]; *Lomonico v Massapequa Pub. Schools,*84 AD3d 1033,1034 [2011]; *DiGiose v Bellmore-Merrick Cent. High School Dist.*50 AD3d 623, 624 [2008]). In support of its motion, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter by establishing that, under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the plaintiff, an experienced participant in step aerobics classes, assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily participating in the subject class *(see Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d at 484; *Berry v Bally Total Fitness Corp.,*272 AD2d 354, 355 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerome
S. Flum, Chief Executive 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
            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.


                                      By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum
                                              Jerome S. Flum
                                              Chief Executive Officer

November 15, 2004


                                       23
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TESORO PROPERTY OWNER’ S ASSOCIATION, INC.

, a Florida not

- for

- profit corporation

, Appellant,

v.

TESORO COMMONS, LLC , a Florida Limited Liability Company

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3006

[February 14, 2018 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Robert E. Belanger , Judge; L.T. Case

No. 562017CA001292

.

Albert B. Moore, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Owen Schultz of McCarthy , Summers, Bobko, Wood, Norman, Bass & Melby, P.A., Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Tesoro Property Owner’s Association, Inc. appeals an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of Tesoro Commons, LLC (“the property owner”). Because the trial court failed to make sufficient factual findings to support the injunction, we reverse.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) mandates that “[e]very injunction shall specify the reasons for entry.” This Court has held that strict compliance with rule 1.610(c) is required. Eldon v. Perrin , 78 So. 3d 737, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Before granting a temporary injunction, the trial court must make clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings showing that (1) the movant will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction is entered; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) entry of a temporary injunction will serve the public
interest. Am. Learning Sys., Inc. v. Gomes , 199 So. 3d 1076, 1082 (Fla.
4th DCA 2016 ); Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci

,2 162 So. 3d 68, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Eldon , 78 So. 3d at 738. Failure to make specific findings as to each of these four elements is reversible

error. Wade v. Brown , 928 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (F la. 4th DCA 2006).

Here, the property owner concedes that neither the oral ruling nor the written order contains sufficient findings to support entry of a temporary injunction. The trial court failed to make any findings that the property
owner will suf fer irreparable harm unless an injunction is entered, that the property owner does not have an adequate remedy at law, or that the entry of an injunction will serve the public interest.

Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction and remand for
furth er proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

G ERBER , C.J., C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bull Run Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A forthe fiscal quarterly period ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date therein specified (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his individual knowledge and belief:(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: September 12, 2005       Signed: /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.         Robert S. Prather, Jr.    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Martinez, Appellant.

[i872 NYS2d 159]

*755Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heffernan, J.), rendered May 2, 2006, as amended May 31, 2006, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the third degree, menacing in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s *Batson*challenge (see *Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]). In response to the defendant’s challenge, the prosecutor stated that she used a peremptory strike to remove a black male prospective juror because he was wearing a shirt upon which was printed the image of A1 Capone and the words “A1 Capone original gangster.” Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this explanation was facially race-neutral and satisfied the prosecutor’s burden under the second prong of the *Batson*analysis (see *People v James,*99 NY2d 264, 270 [2002]; *People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 104, 109 [1995]). “Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral” *(Hernandez v New York,*500 US 352, 360 [1991]; *see Purkett v Elem,*514 US 765, 768 [1995]; *People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 109-110 [1995]). Moreover, the defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong of the *Batson*analysis, that the facially race-neutral explanation given by the prosecutor was a pretext for racial discrimination *(see People v James,*99 NY2d 264, 271 [2002]; *People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172, 181 [1996]; *People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 111 [1995]).

We reject the defendant’s challenge to certain of the prosecutor’s statements during summation. The challenged remarks largely were fair comment on the evidence or fair response to defense counsel’s summation *(see People v Wright,*54 AD3d 695, 696 [2008]; *People v Dick,*48 AD3d 697 [2008]; *People v Simon,*34 AD3d 852 [2006]; *People v McHarris,*297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]). While two of the prosecutor’s comments arguably were improper, any potential prejudice which may have resulted was remedied by the prompt action of the trial court in sustaining the defense counsel’s objections, striking or instructing the jury to disregard the comments, and providing the jury with curative instructions *(see People v Wilson,*50 AD3d 711, 712 [2008]; *756
      *People v Acquista,*41 AD3d 491, 492 [2007]; *People v Wiggins,*31 AD3d 584 [2006]; *People v Warren,*27 AD3d 496, 498 [2006]; *People v Williams, 14*AD3d 519 [2005]).

We decline the defendant’s request to modify the sentence imposed in the interest of justice.

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.
Slip O p. 11-62 UNITED STA TES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Before: Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Court No. 09-00248

JUDGMENT Upon consi derat i on of Department o f Commerce’s Second Results of Redeter minati on Pursu ant to Remand (ECF No. 90), upon comm ents in whi ch all p art i es conc ur wi th affi rmance of that r emand determi nati on (ECF Nos. 93, 97, and 98), upon all other pert i nent papers, and pursuan t to USCI T R. 54, i t is hereby ORDERED that j udgment i s entered sustaining the S econd Results of Redeter minati on Pursuan t to Remand; and i t is further ORDERED that t hi s cas e i s di smi ssed. /s/Gregor y W. Car man Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Dated: May 26, 2011

New York , NY SEAH S TEEL CORPORATIO N,

Plainti ff,
v. UNITED STATES,

Defendan t, and BRIS TOL METALS,

Defendan t-Inter venor .