alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                Exhibit 12(f)

                         System Energy Resources, Inc.
            Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
                       Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges



                                                  1994     1995    1996      1997      1998      1999
<S>                                             <C>      <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Total Interest                                $176,504 $151,512  $143,720  $128,653  $116,060  $147,982
  Interest applicable to rentals                   7,546    6,475     6,223     6,065     5,189     3,871
                                                ---------------------------------------------------------
Total fixed charges, as defined                 $184,050 $157,987  $149,943  $134,718  $121,249  $151,853
                                                =========================================================

Earnings as defined:
  Net Income                                      $5,407  $93,039   $98,668  $102,295  $106,476   $82,375
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes:
      Total                                       36,838   75,493    82,121    74,654    77,263    53,851
    Fixed charges as above                       184,050  157,987   149,943   134,718   121,249   151,853
                                                ---------------------------------------------------------

Total earnings, as defined                      $226,295 $326,519  $330,732  $311,667  $304,988  $288,079
                                                =========================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined      1.23     2.07      2.21      2.31      2.52      1.90
                                                =========================================================




</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme 

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 29, 2015

Order 

May 29, 2015

150725(215)(216)

MARKELL VANSLEMBROUCK, Minor, by and

through ERIC BRAVERMAN, Conservator,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

KIMBERLY A. VANSLEMBROUCK,

Plaintiff,

v

ANDREW JAY HALPERIN, M.D., and WILLIAM 

BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

MICHIGAN INSTITUTE OF GYNECOLOGY

AND OBSTETRICS, P.C.,

Defendant.

SC: 150725

COA: 309680

Oakland CC: 2006-074585-NH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiff-appellee for leave to file 

replies to the answers filed by defendants-appellants and amice curiae McLaren 

Healthcare Corporations and Tenet Healthcare in response to the consolidated motion for 

disclosure are GRANTED. The replies submitted on May 18, 2015, are accepted for 

filing.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Arbaugh, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Arbaugh*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 133.]

(No. 96-2736

Submitted March 4, 1997

Decided April 9, 1997.)

*Robert L. Konstam,*Mansfield Law Director, and *David L. Remy,*Assistant Law Director, for appellant.

The discretionary appeal is allowed.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *Hilliard v. Elfrink*(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 155, 672 N.E.2d 166. The cause is remanded to the court of appeals for that court to address appellant’s remaining assignment of error, which was found to be moot.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
JZauscA^djo.\^l2-OOBH2^C^

~~~" ':• •.••• • "-. : ',..- . j "^RECEIVEDIN Ik^Cm^iU:/:femaLfi^il-JOWqf criminal appeal

— ———^y^d-9^915—-

iJ^rM^D^^

33i£^sixL^£^

AbelAcosta, Clerk

^_VLjJ-J—u—j—__—- '.••'. ^— :";..— :—-——'—: :—L^"—: ! ;

.H&n&rcJJc .knslin__6WnejrrTuJ^(l-P^5acJt:n$-

CD : Come nobJ-pro_S_e J!jl^onLfacJ>is)r^/.i^

Ttat\t\\-UJA}kQuLjXid--oLCoun$-d£r_eS^

'_ e\j\_clcrsCe.Ao_7^ie__C_ourjL Perla,n.ip§_/6_Cau5e._^n_o.

0./-z3rO_o<ty;uc/L in_accacdcncc_LPjJL TeX-CLS-fluleSaFjzppellcU- £ro_cedure_,

.pelrhon- fox J)iscfe)t'x)n_cr_y (lekLCuj.

fLDjR*
}-

£>

^2^-*£?3Uz£L£aM^^

J?u£SO^}L^o_7jix_

&f^j^£c£~£CQn^_

J^Oj^Fc&ifciLn±_

//ous/ooy TtAcS. 7-7-0(jJL_

lAFBe/iaJ; —£fticJDjLshaya^ean_eJL

-| TD.cjl&J&839,3p _

.; - Li9,^c>-^y.3LG^-G^rzo__urM'l-..

\ :3_ecLVjll<L,, Texus _zBloX

Attorneys Ac Shk'-J^.^ Rachel fklmer_Cal J,,_ail_

-HcjLzriS Cctenly_Z>i~sJr,:cJ_^//Qr_aey~S_ Ql.P^lc£___

_\9>0__ JzccktkkJjJi^ ..

J-lc.uL$hn; Te_xa5-y-7o.od__

_ter.._A}c_t___£utr_y_Cor\ &p_p__££_L) _

__Hew is CoontyJlisJrlC/. /jllom£fc.*S_ oM/CjI.

_/aoi__frankUn

/7_o_usjo&-/.Texas 77o_ o_3l

pfyJtJ
O

Mob f(rxr\}c\i/<

Mc^o^yJ^t^^linnA^

/&jj)tk&a^

JI ^loShepkctask, SsjJe JSLo

Ihushn, TexckS 7_7o_L<T

p&p&
|P) _ . . - ^^TjB.^/e.__o_£_Con/dyiisL^_,____ (k$e_sl

^EdtoUly^J^juxJfieLtJ^

Telle &P Conpnjx f^tt;?

^InolM of Gdjfko<rihe,<> f>§ti<i,<r

Ahiemerxl r£$cs-cliac_c>r(\l_ar§urr\ej\} PS UU

Sjick-menJ- _o.P J-he__C(XSt £9 •# 7

si:altme^l__o_^pro_C^clu(_(x\_hislorv _. _p$_ik_8_

_G_co_L>nc/s_ £>r_ce\Ji£UJ___ p_§_frjj,lotil p%

Ac^ujrr.tr\i . P$ik_l3rUi_

Pr_cyzr__foj____ce.-lieP_ .... __p<j&js~_

Appe-r\Jix_ : _:_____?§ _iL/G>_

f^jte
EME-EX10(l-5)_2013.6.30-Q2




EXHIBIT 10(l-5) 


FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
OF EMCOR GROUP, INC.




WHEREAS, the EMCOR Group, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan was adopted in 2005 and has since been amended (the aforesaid plan, as amended, the “LTIP”); 


WHEREAS, Section 8.1 of the LTIP provides that the Board of Directors of EMCOR Group, Inc. (the “Board”) may amend the LTIP, subject to the terms of Section 8.1; and


WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the LTIP should be further amended as provided below;


NOW, THEREFORE, the LTIP is hereby amended as follows:


1.    Section 2 is hereby amended, effective June 11, 2010, so that the definition of Stock Plan reads as follows:


“Stock Plan: means (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the Company’s 2005 Management Stock Incentive Plan, as in effect from time to time, and (ii) in respect of awards made after June 11, 2010, the Company’s 2010 Incentive Plan, as in effect from time to time.”


2.    Effective as of the original date of adoption of the Long Term Incentive Plan, Section 7.7 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


“7.7    Maximum Award Amount.  Notwithstanding anything in this Section 7 to the contrary and for the avoidance of doubt, no single award paid pursuant to this Section 7 shall exceed any applicable limit under the Stock Plan as the Stock Plan is in effect at the relevant time.”


3.    Nothing in this Fourth Amendment shall be construed in a manner that would cause any award under the LTIP intended to qualify for the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to fail to so qualify.


4.      Except as hereinabove amended, the LTIP, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment as of this 13th day of June 2013.


 


EMCOR GROUP, INC.




By:  _____/s/ Anthony J. Guzzi__________
        President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CONTROLLER

I, Susan M. Knutson, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Good Times Restaurants 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

 

 

/s/ Susan M. Knutson

Susan M. Knutson

Controller

August 14, 2007
r • :; 

The State Of Texas 

County Of Caldwell 

RECEiVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

JUL 13 2il15 

I; Tina Morgan Freeman, Clerk of the District Court, within and for the State and County 

aforesaid, do hereby certify that Relator has not filed an Application of Writ of ~~@g~~CBFP.6'~ G!erl< 

Caldwell County. Relator filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus (03-279A) back in 2010 which was 

denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2011. 

In Cause Number 03-279, wherein 

Ex Parte: Louis Howard Confer Plaintiff 

Vs. 

The State Of Texas Defendant 

Given under my hand and seal of office at Lockhart, Texas, this the 91

h day of July, 2015. 

CCA No. WR-27,413-08 

Tina Morgan Freeman, Clerk, District Court 

Caldwell County, Texas 

By
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3289 

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 to 

allow specified energy property grants to real estate investment trusts 

without regard to the ratable share income limitations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 29, 2010 

Mr. CARDIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax 

Act of 2009 to allow specified energy property grants 

to real estate investment trusts without regard to the 

ratable share income limitations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sustainable Property 

5 Grants Act of 2010’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3289 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REIT RATABLE SHARE LIMITA2 TION FOR ARRA GRANTS WITH RESPECT TO 

3 SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 1603 of 

5 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 

6 is amended by inserting after ‘‘Code of 1986’’ the fol7 lowing: ‘‘, except that subsection (d)(1) thereof shall not 

8 apply in the case of a real estate investment trust (as de9 fined in section 856 of such Code)’’. 

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

11 this section shall apply to grants made after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Jill Williams et al., Respondents, v State of New York, Appellant.

Submitted June 11, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*18 NY3d 981 (2012)].
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000

<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                  99
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                          255
<ALLOWANCES>                            20
<INVENTORY>                            865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1209
<PP&E>                                7164
<DEPRECIATION>                        4264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        5536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1033
<BONDS>                                754
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                             14
<COMMON>                               134
<OTHER-SE>                            1129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          5536
<SALES>                               3915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      3915
<CGS>                                 3709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         4093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (222)
<INCOME-TAX>                            39
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (183)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                          (183)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (1.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (1.72)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


      We have issued our report dated April 13, 2009, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of BKF Capital
Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of BKF Capital Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-50132, effective November
17, 2000 and 333-75014, effective December 13, 2001).

/s/ MARK BAILEY & COMPANY, LTD.

Reno, Nevada
April 13, 2009
#### Leon Sabra BLATT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-35986.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Filed June 23, 2006.

Leon Sabra Blatt, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Stephen P. Larson, Esq., Stafford Frey Cooper, John R. Zeldenrust, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Defendants — Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Former prisoner Leon Sabra Blatt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendant employees of the Seattle jail and police force deprived Blatt of his civil rights in connection with his arrest and detention on suspicion of domestic violence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion. *See Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro,*889 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

Blatt’s sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred by not considering Blatt’s untimely opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Blatt filed a motion to extend time to file his opposition after the deadline for filing the opposition had expired. The district court considered the lengthy procedural history of this case, and properly concluded Blatt failed to show excusable neglect in support of his untimely request to file the opposition. *See Bateman v. United States Postal Service,*231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir.2000); *cf. Comm, for Idaho’s High*
      *798
      *Desert, Inc. v. Yost,*92 F.8d 814, 824 (9th Cir.1996) (motion filed after expiration of a deadline properly construed as a motion for enlargement of time under Fed. R.Civ.P. 6). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the untimely opposition. *See Bateman,*231 F.3d at 1223-24.

We further note that even if Blatt’s untimely opposition is considered, summary judgment was proper, because Blatt failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. *See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Blatt’s remaining contentions lack merit.

We grant appellees’ request to strike evidence not submitted to the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Arnav Industries, Inc., Respondent, v Jody Pitari, Appellant.

Submitted May 29, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely. The prior motion for leave to appeal made to the Appellate Division was untimely *(see*Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 12:3, at 436-437 [3d ed rev]).
Exhibit 10(qq)

AMENDMENT TO

THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC.

1993 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan of The Bank of New York Company, Inc.(the Plan) was adopted by the Board of Directors of The Bank of New York Company, Inc. (the Company), effective as of
January 1, 1993; and

WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors (the Board) may
amend the Plan at any time, except in certain respects not material hereto; and

WHEREAS, the Board has amended the Plan, effective
as of October 9, 2006;

NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the above, the first paragraph of Section 17 of the Plan is hereby
amended and restated, effective as of October 9, 2006, to read as follows:

ADJUSTMENT OF AND CHANGES IN STOCK. In the event of
any change in the outstanding shares of Common Stock by reason of any stock dividend or split, recapitalization, merger, consolidation, spinoff, combination or exchange of shares or other corporate change, or any distributions to common shareholders
other than regular cash dividends, the Committee will make such substitution or adjustment, if any, as it deems to be equitable, as to the number or kind of shares of Common Stock or other securities issued or reserved for issuance pursuant to the
Plan and to outstanding Awards.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Bank of New York Company, Inc. has caused this amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officers this 15th day of December, 2006.



/s/    Thomas A. RenyiThomas A. Renyi




|                         
|-------------------------
|ATTEST:                  
|                         
|/s/    Patricia A. Bicket
|Patricia A. Bicket
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Ortiz, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered on or about July 28, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
97-158.

#### State ex rel. Jones v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus and Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
        99.2**
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
        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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of
        Mortlock Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended March 31, 2007,
        as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
        I,
        Michael Laidlaw, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and
        belief:
 
 1.
        The
        Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
        15
        (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
        The
        information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
        Company.
 
 
 Date:
        May
        11, 2007
 
 MICHAEL
        LAIDLAW
 Michael
        Laidlaw
 Chief
        Executive Officer,
 President
        and Director
   -1-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Kelly, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 183]

*462Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., on consolidation motion; John Cataldo, J., at speedy trial motion, jury trial and sentence), rendered October 21, 2005, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, criminal possession, of stolen property in the second and third degrees, and falsifying business records in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The two indictments were properly consolidated pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b). Defendant used the same method to steal from successive employers, and evidence of his actions relating to one indictment was material and admissible in the trial of the other since it demonstrated larcenous intent *(see People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 248-249 [1969], *cert denied*396 US 846 [1969]; *People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 293 [1901]; *People v Radoncic,*259 AD2d 428 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1005 [1999]). The indictments were also properly joined as legally similar pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (c), and joinder was not unduly prejudicial *(see People v Streitferdt,*169 AD2d 171, 176 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 1015 [1991]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictments pursuant to CPL 30.30. The sole period at issue on the motion was the 43-day period during which the People’s motion to consolidate the indictments was pending, and that period was plainly excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) irrespective of the People’s readiness *(see People v Reed,*19 AD3d 312, 315 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 832 [2005]; *People v Osorio,*297 AD2d 231, 232-233 [2002]). To the extent that defendant is also claiming that certain periods during which the People had declared their readiness should nevertheless be deemed includable, such claim is unpreserved and unreviewable for lack of a proper record. Concur—Buckley, RJ., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.