alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                            MUZAK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)



                                       Eight
                                       months       Four
                                       ended        months      Year Ended   Year Ended   Year Ended    Year Ended
                                       August 31,   ended Dec.  Dec. 31,     Dec. 31,     Dec. 31,      Dec. 31,
                                       1992         31, 1992    1993         1994         1995          1996
                                       ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>           <C>            <C>
EARNINGS:
Net loss attributable to
  general and limited partners         ($5,975)     ($656)      ($4,047)     ($8,116)      ($6,743)       ($11,739)
                                       -------     ------      --------      -------      --------       ---------

ADD BACK FIXED CHARGES:

Interest expense including
  amortization of deferred
  financing costs                        3,639      1,228         3,785        6,990         7,483           8,112
Preferred returns                           --        188           572          933         1,029             916
Assumed interest component
  of rent expense (1)                    1,064        546         1,863        2,128         2,566           2,584
                                       -------     ------      --------      -------      --------       ---------
Total fixed charges                      4,703      1,962         6,220       10,051        11,078          11,612
                                       -------     ------      --------      -------      --------       ---------
Adjusted earnings                      ($1,272)    $1,306        $2,173       $1,935        $4,335           ($127)
                                       =======     ======      ========      =======      ========       =========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       (0.27)      0.67          0.35         0.19          0.39           (0.01)
                                       =======     ======      ========      =======      ========       =========
Deficiency of earnings
  to fixed charges                      $5,975       $656        $4,047       $8,116        $6,743         $11,739
                                       =======     ======      ========      =======      ========       =========
<FN>
---------------------
(1) Estimated as one-third of operating lease expenses
</FN>
</TABLE>
No. 965.

#### Shimadzu et al. *v.*Electric Storage Battery Co.

March 30, 1942.

*Messrs. Geo. Whitefield Betts, Jr.*and *George Yamaoka*for petitioners. *Messrs. Hugh M. Morris, A. B. Stoughton,*and *Alexander L. Nichols*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2561 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2561

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy-
                    acetic acid, dimethylamine salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy-
                    acetic acid, dimethylamine salt.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXY-ACETIC ACID, DIMETHYLAMINE SALT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.42 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy-
acetic acid, dimethylamine salt) is amended by striking the date in the 
effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w7



 





Exhibit 10.7




6 February 2001




Mr R. Cunningham

22A Upper Avenue Road

MOSMAN NSW 2088




Dear Ross,



The purpose of this letter is to specify conditions which would apply to you should your employment
with the Company be terminated by the Company for any reason other than fraud or gross misconduct
(“termination”) and to specify the notice required by you in the case of your resignation from the
Company.





			
	w Termination Payment:	 	In the case of termination, and in
recognition of your past long
service to the Company, you shall be
entitled to receive one year’s total
annual remuneration.


Total annual remuneration will be defined as:






	 	•	 	your base salary as approved in the
last review, plus the gross value of
the most recent annual bonus paid;
	 
	 	•	 	the remuneration value of the
company vehicle provided in your
package (if applicable);
	 
	 	•	 	the value, or notional value of the
company contributions to your
superannuation fund;
	 
	 	•	 	the total value of any other
remuneration — eg. “salary
sacrifices” provided in your package
(if applicable).




 









 











			
	w Retention Payment:	 	In the case of a take-over of the Company, and
in recognition of the interests of shareholders, executives and
continuity of business, if you are still in the employ of the
Company 6 months following the completion of the take-over, you
will be entitled to a retention payment equal to 6 months total
annual remuneration. The Company shall not be entitled to
terminate your employment during the 6 month period without
payment of the retention payment.
	 
	w Resignation:	 	In the case of your resignation from the
employ of the Company, you must provide
3 months prior notice thereof to the
Company.
	 
	w
Corporations Law
    Limit on Benefits:	 	If section 200B of the Australian Corporations Law applies, then nothing in
this letter shall allow you to receive an amount greater than that permitted under section
200G of the Australian Corporations Law.




I should also note that the Company has just adopted a new General Redundancy Policy (the “New
Policy”) (copy attached). You would be entitled, in the case of Redundancy (as defined under the
New Policy), to a payment under either the New Policy or the previous policy it replaced (the
“Existing Policy”) (as defined under the New Policy) (copy attached). The payment will be the
greater of the two amounts calculated in accordance with the New Policy and the Existing Policy
applicable to an employee on job level JG 22+.



These conditions will expressly form part of your contract of service with the Company from the
date of this letter. Kindly sign, date and return the attached copy of this letter to indicate
your acceptance of these conditions.




Yours sincerely,

SIMSMETAL LIMITED / SIMSMETAL SERVICES PTY LTD




JOHN CRABB

Managing Director and CEO

Simsmetal Limited





			
	I accept these conditions of
employment:	 	
 
ROSS CUNNINGHAM






			
	Dated:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,048
<PP&E>                                          20,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           674
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,382
<SALES>                                         14,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,596
<CGS>                                            9,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    598
<INCOME-TAX>                                       239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                359
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
No. 900.

#### Sheridan et al., Trustees, et al. *v.*Rothensies, Collector of Internal Revenue.

March 9, 1942.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Ap*816peals for the Third Circuit denied.

*Messrs. Morris M. Wexler*and *Harry Shapiro*for petitioners. *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Clark,*and *Messrs. 3. Louis Monarch, Newton K. Fox,*and *H. G. Ingraham,*for respondent.
No. 32.

#### Roth *v.*United States.

February 16, 1942.

Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.

*Ante,*p. 60.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 29, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00689

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.G. II,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- P A

- 01552 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Our opinion in this appeal issued on March 11, 2015. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for rehearing was due March 26, 2015. On April 21, 2015, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. Rule 49.8 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing if a party files a proper motion for extension of time to file the rehearing “no later than 15 days after the last

dat e for filing the motion.” The last date for filing the motion for rehearing was March 26, 2015. Thus, per Rule 49.8, appellant’s extension of time to file a motion for rehearing had to be filed in this court no later than April 10, 2015. Because appella nt did not file his motion for extension of time until April 21, 2015, the motion is untimely. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion

for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREO F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. 02-30744

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(02-CR-39-ALL-A)

-------------------- March 19, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Michael Anthony Jones entered a

conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Jones appeals

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the firearm

found during a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving.

Jones concedes that the New Orleans police officer’s initial entry

into the vehicle was lawful, but contends that the district court

erred in crediting the testimony of the officer that he discovered

the firearm accidentally after he entered the vehicle.2

“In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to

suppress, we review questions of law de novo

, and accept the

district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly

erroneous.” United States v. Castro , 166 F.3d 728, 731 (5th Cir.

1999)(en banc). “[V]iew[ing] the relevant evidence in a light most

favorable to the party that prevailed; in this case, the

[G]overnment,” the district court did not clearly err in relying on

the officer’s testimony and finding that the officer discovered the

firearm accidentally. I d. The government witnesses “told a

coherent and facially plausible story that [wa]s not contradicted

by extrinsic evidence,” and the district court’s finding was “not

internally inconsistent.” I d. at 733; see also United States v.

Gillyard

, 261 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 2001) (upholding district

court’s denial of motion to suppres s evidence from warrantless

vehicle search based upon credibility assessmen t of testimony),

cert. denied

, 534 U.S. 1094 (2002). Therefore, the district court

did not err when it denied the motion to suppress the admission of

the firearm into evidence. S ee id. ; see also Gillyard

, 261 F.3d at

509.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby

AFFIRMED.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 982

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rayon staple fibers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2005

Ms. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rayon staple 

fibers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN RAYON 

4 STAPLE FIBERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.55.04 Viscose filament rayons having a decitex 

of less than 5.0 and a multi-limbed 

cross-section, the limbs having a lengthto-width aspect ratio of at least 2:1 (provided for in subheading 5504.10.00) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•S 982 IS 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.23 
 AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY 
 The purpose of this Director Compensation Policy of Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), is to provide a
total compensation package that enables the Corporation attract and retain, on a long-term basis, high caliber directors who are not employees or officers of the Corporation or its subsidiaries. This policy will become effective as of the closing of
the Company’s initial firm commitment underwritten public offering of equity securities (the “Effective Date”). 
 In
furtherance of this purpose, following the Effective Date, all non-employee directors shall be paid cash compensation for services provided to the Corporation as set forth below. 
  

										
	 	  	Annual Retainer	  	 In-Person
Attendance
 Per Meeting
	  	 Telephonic
Attendance
 Per Meeting

	 Board
	  			  			  		
	 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	35,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	500
	 Other Directors
	  	$	20,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	500
	 Audit Committee
	  			  			  		
	 Committee Chairman
	  	$	10,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	500
	 Committee Members
	  	$	7,500	  	$	1,000	  	$	500
	 Other Board Committees
	  			  			  		
	 Committee Chairman
	  	$	7,500	  	$	1,000	  	$	500
	 Committee Members
	  	$	5,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	500

 The Annual Retainer will be paid quarterly, in arrears, or upon the earlier resignation or removal of the
non-employee director. Amounts owing to non-employee directors as Annual Retainer shall be annualized, meaning that non-employee directors who join the board during the calendar year, and with respect to all non-employee directors for 2007, such
amounts shall be pro rated based on the number of calendar days served by such director. 
 The non-employee directors shall also be eligible
to participate in the Corporation’s stock option plans on a case by case basis. Following the Effective Date, each person who is appointed or elected to the Board of Directors, or is re-elected to the Board of Directors, as a non-employee
director will be eligible for an option grant to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock under the Corporation’s stock option plan on the date he or she first becomes a non-employee director, or is re-elected to the Board of Directors (the
“Director Option Grant”). For so long as the director remains on the Board of Directors, the Director Option Grant shall vest one-third (1/3) on each one-year anniversary of the date of grant. Director Option Grants become immediately
exercisable upon the death, disability or retirement of a director or upon a change in control of the Company. In addition, the form of option agreement will give directors up to one year following cessation of service as a director to exercise the
options (to the extent vested at the date of such cessation), provided that the director has not been removed for cause. All of the foregoing options will be granted at fair market value on the date of grant. 
 The foregoing compensation will be in addition to reimbursement of all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by directors in attending meetings of the Board of
Directors.
November 20, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

COURTLAND BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-12-00249-CV V.

JALAL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD, SOHAIL JALAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

YASMEEN JALAL, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from an order signed March 5, 2012 denying appellant 

Courtland Building Company, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, was heard on the 

transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. 

We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED as it pertains to the 

following claims:

1. The claims asserted by appellees Jalal Family Partnership, Ltd., Sohail Jalal, and 

Yasmeen Jalal;

2. Courtland Building Company, Inc.’s claims for (a) breach of contract, (b) lien 

foreclosure, (c) declaratory judgment on the validity of its mechanic’s and 

materialman’s liens, (d) breach of fiduciary duty under section 162.001 of Texas 

Property Code, (e) violations of section 28.002 of the Texas Property Code, 

(f) quantum meruit, and (g) fraudulent inducement of the construction contract that 

is the subject of this suit.

In addition, we order the portion of the trial court’s order denying the motion to 

abate proceedings pending arbitration REVERSED as it pertains to the claims described 

above. 
We REMAND the cause to the trial court for with instructions to (a) grant 

Courtland Building Company, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims as 

described herein, (b) stay further litigation of those claims pending arbitration, and 

(c) determine whether it is appropriate to stay Courtland Building Company, Inc.’s 

fraudulent-transfer claims and its requests for declaratory judgment in connection with 

instruments recorded at numbers 2009007610 and 2012002647 of the Fort Bend County 

Real Property Records pending arbitration.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Jalal Family Partnership, Ltd., Sohail Jalal, Individually, and Yasmeen Jalal, 

Individually.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 830 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to insert a new definition 

relating to oil and gas exploration and production. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2005 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to insert 

a new definition relating to oil and gas exploration and 

production. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION RELATING TO OIL AND GAS EX4 PLORATION AND PRODUCTION. 

5 Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 
2 

•S 830 IS

1 ‘‘(24) OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION, PRODUC2 TION, PROCESSING, TREATMENT OPERATION, OR

3 TRANSMISSION.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘oil and gas 

5 exploration, production, processing, treatment 

6 operation, or transmission’ means all field ac7 tivities or operations associated with oil or gas 

8 exploration, production, or processing, or oil or 

9 gas treatment operations or transmission facili10 ties. 

11 ‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘oil and gas 

12 exploration, production, processing, treatment 

13 operation, or transmission’ includes activities 

14 necessary to prepare a site for oil or gas drilling 

15 and for the movement and placement of drilling 

16 equipment, whether or not the field activities or 

17 operations may be considered to be construction 

18 activities.’’. 

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 24.2


                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned constitutes and appoints Vince Hren, or the Chief Financial
Officer of Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and each of them, his true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1999, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments to
such Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and all
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.


DATED: 3/2/00

                                               /s/  Roger C. Ferguson
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Roger C. Ferguson