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

 

**FORM10-Q**

**PACCARFINANCIAL CORP.**

 

**COMPUTATION OF RATIOOF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO SECREPORTING REQUIREMENTS**(1)

(Millions of Dollars)

 
|                               |   | **Three  Months Ended  March 31** |     |
|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|----------|
|                               |   | **2004**                               |     | **2003** |   |
|                               |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                      |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| Interest expense                   |   | **$**                                  | **15.9** |   | $ | 22.8 |   |
| Portion of rentals deemed interest |   | **.3**                                 |     | .3 |   |
|                               |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                |   | **$**                                  | **16.2** |   | $ | 23.1 |   |
|                               |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| EARNINGS                           |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| Income before income taxes         |   | **$**                                  | **24.4** |   | $ | 17.0 |   |
| Fixed charges                      |   | **16.2**                               |     | 23.1 |   |
|                               |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS DEFINED                |   | **$**                                  | **40.6** |   | $ | 40.1 |   |
|                               |   |                                   |     |   |   |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |   | **2.51**                               | **X**    | 1.74 | x |

 

----

(1) The method of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed chargesshown above complies with SEC reporting requirements but differs from themethod called for in the Support Agreement between the Company and PACCAR asshown in Exhibit 12.2.

 

1

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ESEQUIEL LOPEZ-BELTRAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10241

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01495-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

 

Esequiel Lopez-Beltran appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lopez-Beltran’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are

FILED

JUN 27 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Lopez-Beltran the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. 

No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Lopez-Beltran has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 13-10241
#### § 217.1 Introduction.

This part prescribes how to apply for an annuity or lump-sum payment under this chapter. It contains the rules for the filing and cancellation of an application and the period of time the application is in effect. Eligibility requirements for an annuity and for a lump-sum payment are found respectively in parts 216 and 234 of this chapter.

[54 FR 13363, Apr. 3, 1989]
### §347a. Congressional declaration of policy regarding oleomargarine sales

The Congress hereby finds and declares that the sale, or the serving in public eating places, of colored oleomargarine or colored margarine without clear identification as such or which is otherwise adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] depresses the market in interstate commerce for butter and for oleomargarine or margarine clearly identified and neither adulterated nor misbranded, and constitutes a burden on interstate commerce in such articles. Such burden exists, irrespective of whether such oleomargarine or margarine originates from an interstate source or from the State in which it is sold.

(Mar. 16, 1950, ch. 61, §3(a), 64 Stat. 20.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in text, is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 301 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1950, see section 7 of act Mar. 16, 1950, set out as a note under section 347 of this title.
About ODEP

The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) was authorized by Congress in the Department of Labor's FY 2001 appropriation. Recognizing the need for a national policy to ensure that people with disabilities are fully integrated into the 21st Century workforce, the Secretary of Labor delegated authority and assigned responsibility to the Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy. ODEP is a sub-cabinet level policy agency in the Department of Labor.

Mission

The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) provides national leadership by developing and influencing disability employment-related policies and practices affecting an increase in the employment of people with disabilities.

Vision

A world in which people with disabilities have unlimited employment opportunities.

For more information about ODEP’s research and initiatives please visit, www.dol.gov/odep.

Office of Disability Employment Policy
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAY HIGH

 7,600

 6,674

 8,014

 9,063

 9,583

 9,842

 10,174

 8,868

 7,304

 6,601

 6,413

 5,889

 6,259

 5,259

 5,603

 4,415

 5,630

 5,482

 4,751

 4,728

 4,126

 3,564

 3,101

 3,406

 3,008

 3,304

 4,346

 4,782

 6,408

 687

 670

 781

 926

 1,272

 1,352

 1,694

 1,628

 1,493

 1,494

 1,430

 1,304

 1,153

 888

 856

 589

 817

 854

 840

 807

 806

 790

 651

 697

 707

 591

 697

 755

 618

 2,502

 2,395

 3,568

 4,014

 4,125

 4,499

 5,396

 4,450

 3,594

 3,330

 3,015

 2,784

 2,805

 1,990

 1,941

 1,571

 1,931

 1,978

 1,701

 1,697

 1,525

 1,485

 1,348

 1,437

 1,232

 1,280

 1,665

 1,563

 2,362

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 13, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF GLOBAL PARTNERS LP PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Global Partners LP (the Partnership) and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eric Slifka, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  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 Partnership.  Dated:   March 11, 2011
By:
/s/Eric   SlifkaEric   SlifkaPresident   and Chief Executive Officerof   Global GP LLC, general partnerof   Global Partners LP
Exhibit
      32





Multiband
      Corporation





Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As
      Adopted Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with this Quarterly Report Form 10-Q, Multiband Corporation (the
      “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007, I, James L. Mandel, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.  This
      Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and


2.  The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date: November
              14, 2007
            By:
            /s/ James
              L.
              Mandel*Chief
                Executive Officer*


In
      connection with this Quarterly Report Form 10-Q, Multiband Corporation (the
      “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007, I, Steven M. Bell, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.  This
      Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and


2.  The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date: November
                14, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Steven
                M.
                Bell*Chief
                  FinancialOfficer*
 27
### §1151. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §511(b), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1705

Section, Pub. L. 105–244, title VIII, §821, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1813; Pub. L. 110–315, title IX, §932, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3456; Pub. L. 111–39, title VIII, §802(a)(1), July 1, 2009, 123 Stat. 1956, related to grants to States for workplace and community transition training for incarcerated individuals.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3101 of Title 29, Labor.
#### Elmer M. Kimbark v. Waldemar Company and Others. (2 cases.)

Motions denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 1001.163 What is the national entered employment rate (EER) and what is a State's program year EER for purposes of this part? ( a ) For purposes of this part, we use the EER for veterans and eligible persons. This is the EER as applied to veterans (as defined in § 1001.162) and eligible persons (as defined in § 1001.161) who are participants in State employment service delivery systems.
( b ) The EER for veterans and eligible persons measures the number of the participants described in paragraph (a) of this section who are employed after exiting an employment service delivery system compared to the total number of those participants who exited. We will issue policy guidance to establish the method of calculating the EER.
( c ) The national EER for veterans and eligible persons is the EER achieved by the national State employment service delivery system for those veterans and eligible persons who are participants in all of the State employment service delivery systems for the program year under review. The national EER resulting from this calculation is expressed as a percentage that is rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.
( d ) A State's program year EER is the EER for veterans and eligible persons (as calculated in paragraph (b) of this section) achieved by a single State's employment service delivery system for those veterans and eligible persons who are included in the EER measure for that State's employment service delivery system for the program year under review. The program year EER resulting from this calculation is expressed as a percentage that is rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.
EXHIBIT 4.1

 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 

	
                 001
    	
***[      ]***
    


 

LEGACY HOUSING CORPORATION

AUTHORIZED CAPITAL 100,000,000 SHARES, COMMON STOCK, PAR VAULE $0.001 PER SHARE

SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS.

 

	
[                                  ]
    
	
***[           ]   ([     ])***
    


 

	
Date:                     , 20      
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Curtis D. Hodgson,   Co-Chief Executive 
   Officer and Secretary
    	
 
    	
Kenneth E. Shipley,   Co-Chief Executive
   Officer and Treasurer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIELA ABIGAIL PALMA

SANDOVAL, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72786 Agency No. A206

- 445

- 011

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Gabriela Abigail Palma

- Sandoval, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of remo val, and relief under the Convention

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 37 1 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeono v , 37 1 F.3d at 535

. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Palma

- Sandoval failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular
social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of

mem bers who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)) ). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s det ermination that Palma

- Sandoval otherwise failed to establish that she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground

. S ee Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a prot ected ground”). Thus, Palma

- Sandoval’s asylum3

and withholding of removal claim s fail

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
P alma

- Sandoval failed to show that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Palma

- Sandoval ’ s contention that the agency violated her due process rights
fails

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
### §1115. Notice relating to the control of dangerous drugs

Whenever the Attorney General determines that there is evidence that—

(1) a drug or other substance, which is not a controlled substance (as defined in section 802(6) of this title), has a potential for abuse, or

(2) a controlled substance should be transferred or removed from a schedule under section 812 of this title,

he shall, prior to initiating any proceeding under section 811(a) of this title, give the President timely notice of such determination. Information forwarded to the Attorney General pursuant to section 811(f) of this title shall also be forwarded by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the President.

(Pub. L. 92–255, title II, §201, formerly §205, as added Pub. L. 96–181, §4, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1311; amended Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §973(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 598; renumbered §201, Pub. L. 100–690, title I, §1007(c)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4187.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 201 of Pub. L. 92–255, title II, as added Pub. L. 96–181, §4, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1310; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §1306, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2170, related to concentration of Federal effort in drug abuse prevention, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, title I, §1007(c)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4187.

A prior section 1115, Pub. L. 92–255, title II, §205, as added Pub. L. 94–237, §4(b), Mar. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 242, which provided for employment, functions, and travel expenses of employees, was omitted in the general revision of this subchapter by Pub. L. 96–181, §4, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1309.

Another prior section 1115, Pub. L. 92–255, title II, §205, Mar. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 68, provided for the delegation of functions by the Director, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 92–255, title I, §104, Mar. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 67, eff. June 30, 1975.

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 1118 of this title prior to the general revision of this subchapter by Pub. L. 96–181, §4, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1309.

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–35 substituted "Health and Human Services" for "Health, Education, and Welfare".
§ 355.10 Default upon failure to file an answer. ( a ) If the defendant does not file an answer within the time prescribed in § 355.9(a), the reviewing official may refer the complaint to the ALJ.
( b ) Upon the referral of the complaint, the ALJ shall promptly serve on defendant in the manner prescribed in § 355.8, a notice that an initial decision will be issued under this section.
( c ) If the defendant has failed to answer the complaint, the ALJ shall assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and, if such facts establish liability under § 355.3, the ALJ shall issue an initial decision imposing the maximum amount of penalties and assessments allowed under the statute.
( d ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by failing to file a timely answer, the defendant waives any right to further review of the penalties and assessments imposed under paragraph (c) of this section, and the initial decision shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after it is issued.
( e ) If, before such an initial decision becomes final, the defendant files a motion with the ALJ seeking to reopen on the grounds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the defendant from filing an answer, the initial decision shall be stayed pending the ALJ's decision on the motion.
( f ) If, on such motion, the defendant can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the failure to file a timely answer, the ALJ shall withdraw the initial decision in paragraph (c) of this section, if such a decision has been issued, and shall grant the defendant an opportunity to answer the complaint.
( g ) A decision of the ALJ denying a defendant's motion under paragraph (e) of this section is not subject to reconsideration under § 355.38.
( h ) The defendant may appeal to the authority head the decision denying a motion to reopen by filing a notice of appeal with the authority head within 15 days after the ALJ denies the motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal shall stay the initial decision until the authority head decides the issue.
( i ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the authority head, the ALJ shall forward the record of the proceeding to the authority head.
( j ) The authority head shall decide expeditiously whether extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer based solely on the record before the ALJ.
( k ) If the authority head decides that extraordinary circumstances excused the defendant's failure to file a timely answer, the authority head shall remand the case to the ALJ with instructions to grant the defendant an opportunity to answer.
( l ) If the authority head decides that the defendant's failure to file a timely answer is not excused, the authority head shall reinstate the initial decision of the ALJ, which shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the authority head issues such decision.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. D avis, 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.

_________________ ________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

d0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

143976

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 143976

COA: 291744

Genesee CC: 08

- 022016

- FC

JOSHUN EDWARDS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2011

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### Part H—Assignment of Foreign Service Personnel
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 23,613

 19,890

 21,842

 20,257

 17,976

 15,812

 18,397

 16,101

 16,783

 15,986

 18,837

 15,398

 17,001

 18,663

 17,800

 18,213

 18,405

 17,446

 17,324

 16,777

 12,536

 12,870

 15,604

 15,288

 12,905

 15,311

 15,854

 18,333

 18,984

 16,855

 15,279

 4,644

 4,634

 4,873

 6,168

 4,804

 5,227

 4,887

 5,986

 4,140

 4,536

 4,886

 3,841

 3,753

 3,695

 3,630

 3,317

 3,784

 3,531

 4,420

 4,803

 5,579

 4,940

 5,751

 4,882

 4,656

 5,006

 4,699

 3,815

 4,437

 4,447

 4,111

 11,795

 10,944

 12,845

 11,743

 11,154

 10,160

 10,844

 9,442

 9,090

 8,573

 8,916

 7,924

 8,144

 10,370

 9,674

 9,904

 9,960

 10,369

 10,163

 9,697

 9,221

 9,332

 8,993

 8,513

 8,003

 9,016

 10,207

 11,023

 10,393

 9,621

 9,715

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 12, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY