alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.1



APOGENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.



COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                          |  | Fiscal Year Ended September 30, |         |   | Nine MonthsEndedJune 30,2003 |  
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | ------- | - | ---------------------------- | -
|                                          |  | 1998                            |         |   | 1999                         |  
|Fixed Charges:                            |  |                                 |         |   |                              |  
|Interest expense                          |  | $                               | 35,270  |   |                              | $
|Deferred financing                        |  |                                 | 151     |   |                              |  
|1/3Rental expense                         |  |                                 | 1,343   |   |                              |  
|                                          |  |                                 |         |   |                              |  
|                                          |  | $                               | 36,764  |   |                              | $
|Earnings:                                 |  |                                 |         |   |                              |  
|Pre tax income from continuing operations |  | $                               | 85,789  |   |                              | $
|Add: Fixed charges                        |  |                                 | 36,764  |   |                              |  
|Earnings                                  |  |                                 | 122,553 |   |                              |  
|Ratio of Earnings to fixed charges        |  |                                 | 3.3     | x |                              |  
|                                          |  |                                 |         |   |                              |  
|Rental Expense                            |  | $                               | 4,028   |   |                              | $
|                                          |  |                                 |         |   |                              |
Gross Gaming Revenue Growth Rate By Region

2

Overall Growth Rate

FY16 vs FY15 = 4.4%

FY15 vs FY14 = 5.0%

FY14 vs FY13 = 1.5% 

FY14 FY15 FY16
# Anti-Sexual Harassment
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13893]



[[Page 28283]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,345]


Quala-Die, Inc., St. Marys, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 23, 2009, in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Quala-Die, Inc., St. Marys, 
Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13893 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3649 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3649

  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
provide for use of excess funds available under that Act to provide for 
               certain benefits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2010

Mr. Rockefeller (for himself and Mr. Goodwin) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
provide for use of excess funds available under that Act to provide for 
               certain benefits, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coal Accountability and Retired 
Employee Act of 2010'' or the ``CARE Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 
              1977.

    Section 402(i)(2) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(i)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Subject to'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--Subject to''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Excess amounts.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Subject to paragraph 
                        (3), and after all transfers referred to in 
                        paragraph (1) and subparagraph (A) of this 
                        paragraph have been made, any amounts remaining 
                        after the application of paragraph (3)(A) 
                        (without regard to this subparagraph) shall be 
                        transferred to the trustees of the 1974 UMWA 
                        Pension Plan and used solely to pay pension 
                        benefits required under such plan.
                            ``(ii) 1974 umwa pension plan.--In this 
                        subparagraph, the term `1974 UMWA Pension Plan' 
                        means a pension plan referred to in section 
                        9701(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
                        but without regard to whether participation in 
                        such plan is limited to individuals who retired 
                        in 1976 and thereafter.''.
                                 <all>
```
# ACTIV
Presidential Documents

3961 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 12 

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of January 15, 2009 

Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process 

On January 23, 1995, by Executive Order 12947, the President declared 

a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 

States constituted by grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists 

who threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process. On August 20, 

1998, by Executive Order 13099, the President modified the Annex to Executive Order 12947 to identify four additional persons, including Usama bin 

Laden, who threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process. 

Because these terrorist activities continue to threaten the Middle East peace 

process and to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 

security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national 

emergency declared on January 23, 1995, as expanded on August 20, 1998, 

and the measures adopted on those dates to deal with that emergency 

must continue in effect beyond January 23, 2009. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to foreign 

terrorists who threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

January 15, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–1364 

Filed 1–16–09; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–W9–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRO2GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
#### Mohamadou Alassane NDIAYE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-4822-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 14, 2006.

Michael Mandel, Wormser, Kiely, Galef & Jacobs, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Todd P. Graves, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Lucinda S. Woolery, Assistant United States Attorney, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. THOMAS J. MESKILL, Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB and Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Mohamadou Alassane Ndiaye, a native and resident of Mauritania, appeals from a BIA’s order affirming Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Horn’s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Although the BIA stated that it “adopt[ed] and affirm[ed]” the IJ’s deci*62sion, the balance of the BIA’s decision clearly indicated that the BIA only agreed with the IJ’s “ultimate conclusion that the [petitioner] failed to establish his eligibility for relief from removal ... the [petitioner] is unable to demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to Mauritania.” As a result, we will review only the BIA’s decision. *Cf. Ming Xia Chen v. BIA,*435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir.2006).

The BIA relied upon the State Department 2002 Report on conditions in Mauritania to conclude that conditions had sufficiently changed' in Mauritania so that petitioner would no longer have a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned there. For the reasons more fully discussed in *Tambadou v. Gonzales,*446 F.3d 298 (2d Cir.2006), the BIA’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence. The BIA failed to consider the countervailing reports in the record, some of which suggest that conditions in Mauritania have not improved to the degree indicated by the 2002 Report.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the reasoning of *Tambadou.*
#### Cuyahoga County Bar Association *v.*Churilla.

[Cite as *Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348.]

(No. 96-1967

Submitted February 18, 1997

Decided May 14, 1997.)

*350
      *Thomas J. Escovar*and *Engeline H. Koepper,*for relator.

*H. Kenneth Paulett,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We have said on many occasions that “the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds and continued neglect of duty is disbarment.” *Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner*(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 164, 167, 672 N.E.2d 633, 635, and cases cited therein. The facts in this case not only parallel those in *Sterner,*namely, a continued pattern of stealing from clients and neglect of client interests, but, as in *Sterner,*the respondent also seeks to mitigate the severity of any sanction by reference to his psychological condition unsupported by properly admitted expert testimony.

Moreover, the respondent engaged in a continuing course of deceit and misrepresentation to both clients and the court. In *Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh*(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 239, we said, “Such conduct strikes at the very core of a lawyer’s relationship with the court and with the client. Respect for our profession is diminished with every deceitful act of a lawyer. We cannot expect citizens to trust that lawyers are honest if we have not sanctioned those who are not.”

The function of a disciplinary action as we said in *Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188, is to determine “ ‘whether a [person] whom [we] have formerly admitted, is a proper person to be continued on the roll or not.’ ” Respondent has demonstrated by his actions that he is not a proper person to be continued on the roll of those licensed to practice law. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit23**

 

**Spherix Incorporated**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated March 10, 2006(except for Note 6, as to which the date is March 31, 2006)accompanyingthe financial statements and schedules included in the Annual Report of SpherixIncorporated on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the RegistrationStatements of Spherix Incorporated on Form S-8 (File No. 333-66053) and onForms S-3 (File No. 333-44973, 333-79593 and 333-32504).

 
| /s/ Grant Thornton LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|

 

 

Vienna, Virginia

March 10, 2006

 

----
VELVA L. PRICE, District Clerk, Travis County Courthouse, Third Floor

RECEIPT AND EXECUTION OF MANDATE FROM
THE COURT OF APPEALS
BY THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT CLERK

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk July 13, 2015
Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas FILED

P.O. Box 12547 |
Austin, Texas 78711-2547 July 13, 2015 |

_ Third Court of Appeals
Criminal Division Jeffrey D. Kyle
P.O. Box 679004, Clerk

Austin, Texas, 78767

Re: No. 03-14-00679-CR
(Trial Court No.D-1-DC-08-303026)

Styled: LESLIE PARKER JONES
vs.
The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 87(b)(1), I hereby forward my acknowledgment
of the receipt and the execution of the mandate on JULY 13, 2015 from the Court of Appeals in
the above cause. The official execution of this mandate is recognized by the Travis County
Sheriff whereas the capias after mandate, official notice of mandate, or transfer of inmate to
proper authorities, has been executed and or is in the process of being executed hereby placing the
defendant within the proper jurisdiction of the trial court.

Respectfully,

VELVA L. PRICE
District Clerk
Travis County, Texas

GD unter

Deputy, JESSICA CONTRERAS

By:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                      5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                         1,762,164
<SECURITIES>                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                  110,000
<ALLOWANCES>                   000
<INVENTORY>                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,872,164
<PP&E>                         000
<DEPRECIATION>                 000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,936,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,219,798
<BONDS>                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          000
<PREFERRED>                    000
<COMMON>                       000
<OTHER-SE>                     716,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,936,547
<SALES>                        000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1,191,132
<CGS>                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               457,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                10,758,947
<INCOME-TAX>                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            10,758,947
<DISCONTINUED>                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                000
<CHANGES>                      000
<NET-INCOME>                   10,758,947
<EPS-BASIC>                    2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                  2.18


</TABLE>
[774 NYS2d 903]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gayner H., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 12, 2003

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Andrew C. Fine*and *Robert Budner*of counsel), for appellant. *Charles J. Hynes, District At*
      *45
      *torney,*Brooklyn *(Leonard Joblove*and *Morgan J. Dennehy*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment adjudicating defendant a youthful offender unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the People failed to comply with the notice requirement set forth in Penal Law § 450.10 is without merit since the police never had custody of the stolen merchandise *(People v Williams,*214 AD2d 437 [1995]; *People v Faucette,*201 AD2d 252 [1994]; *People v Lowe,*135 AD2d 836 [1987]). The police officer merely photographed the merchandise in question at the store after the security guard apprehended the defendant.

The attention of the Legislature should be drawn to the problem that there is no obligation on the part of the owner of the stolen property to preserve said property for trial *(cf.*Penal Law § 450.10). While we recognize that some goods are perishable or apt to lose value if preserved, we feel that certain measures should be taken to protect a defendant’s opportunity to prepare a defense. It would seem prudent in most instances for the police to take custody of the goods for a limited and specific time period. Thus, defendant would have the opportunity to examine the goods in preparation for trial.

Pesce, BJ., Aronin and Patterson, JJ., concur.
March 9, 2012

Dear Tribal Advisory Committee Member:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we would like to 

thank the Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC or Committee) for its recent regulatory review of 

Part 543, Minimum Internal Control Standards (MICS) for Class II Games.

The Commission understands the importance of Minimum Internal Control Standards for Class 

II Games in ensuring the integrity and security of Indian gaming. We appreciate the 

Committee’s assistance in providing recommendations to revise this regulation to further ensure 

high standards are maintained in the industry. A comprehensive review of the recommendations 

submitted by the TAC is currently underway and we may request additional questions or 

clarifications from the Committee. 

While this Committee’s work provides valuable input, we recognize that the Tribal Advisory 

Committee is only one component of our overall regulatory review process and cannot substitute 

for meaningful, government-to-government consultation with tribes. Therefore, after our review 

of the TAC’s recommendations is complete and any subsequent regulatory modifications are 

made, and as has been the practice of this Commission, we will commence consultations 

meetings with tribal governments. 

Again, we sincerely appreciate your dedication to this process and commend each member and 

their sponsoring tribe for their valuable contribution to this important process. We look forward 

to your tribes continued participation throughout the Commission’s regulatory review.

Sincerely,

Tracie L. Stevens Steffani A. Cochran Daniel J. Little

Chairwoman Vice-Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
To the Trustees and Shareholders of
Eastern Utilities Associates:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Eastern Utilities Associates on Forms S-4 and S-8 (File No. 33-50099 and 33-
49897, respectively) of our reports dated March 3, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Eastern
Utilities Associates and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and
for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which reports are
incorporated by reference or included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                        Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.




Boston, Massachusetts
March 16, 1998
Exhibit 31(h)

CERTIFICATIONS

** 
I, Daniel F. Packer, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy New Orleans, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) 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   
d) 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 internal control over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   
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.

 

		/s/ Daniel F. Packer		

**