alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

PHILLIP F. DRINKWATER, III a/k/a PHILLIP FRANCIS DRINKWATER, III :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2495 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Board File No. C1

- 17

- 708

(Supreme Court of New Jersey

, M

- 1104 September Term 2014)

Attorney Registration No. 62058

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of August , 20 18, having failed to respond to a Notice and

Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline,

Phillip F. Drinkwater, III, is transferred to disability inactive status in the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania . He shall com ply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
§ 361.17 Coordination with other government agencies. ( a ) *Board is paying agency.* ( 1 ) If the Board receives a claim which meets the requirements of 5 CFR 550.1108 from another agency, deductions shall begin prospectively at the next officially established pay interval. The employee will receive written notice that the Board has received a certified debt claim from a creditor agency. The notice will contain the amount of the debt and the date deductions from salary will commence and the amount of such deductions.
( 2 ) If the Board receives a claim which does not meet the requirements of 5 CFR 550.1108, then the Board will return the claim to the creditor agency and inform the creditor agency that before any action is taken to collect the debt from the employee's current pay account, the procedures under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 5 CFR part 550 must be followed and a claim which meets the requirements of 5 CFR 550.1108 must be received.
( b ) *Board is creditor agency.* When the Board is owed a debt by an employee of another agency, the other agency shall not initiate the requested offset until the Board provides the agency with a written certification that the procedures under this part have been followed and the Board has provided the other agency with a claim which meets the requirement of 5 CFR 550.1108.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00243

- CV

Yvette Hernandez v. First Bank d/b/a First Bank Mortgage, Its Successors and Assigns

On a ppeal from the County Court of Willacy County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2018

- CCV

- 0003

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COUR T OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution . The Court
orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 26, 2018
```

[113th Congress Public Law 203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2070]]

Public Law 113-203
113th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for 
       other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 13, 2014 -  [H.J. Res. 131]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Resolution, 2015 (Public Law 113-164) is further 
amended <<NOTE: Ante, p. 2069.>>  by striking the date specified in 
section 106(3) and inserting ``December 17, 2014''.

    Approved December 13, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 131:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Dec. 12, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Patsy V. Croce, Appellant, v. Village of Bronxville, Respondent.

.Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Nolan, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 904.]
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.2215 When services must have been provided. ( a ) In order for the VR agency to be paid, the services must have been provided— ( 1 ) After September 30, 1981;
( 2 ) During a month(s) for which— ( i ) The individual is eligible for disability or blindness benefits or continues to receive such benefits under section 1631(a)(6) of the Act (see § 416.2212); or
( ii ) The disability or blindness benefits of the individual are suspended due to his or her ineligibility for the benefits (see subpart M of this part concerning suspension for ineligibility); and
( 3 ) Before completion of a continuous 9-month period of SGA or termination of disability or blindness benefits, whichever occurs first (see subpart M of this part concerning termination of benefits).
( b ) If an individual who is receiving disability or blindness benefits under this part, or whose benefits under this part are suspended, also is entitled to disability benefits under part 404 of this chapter, the determination as to when services must have been provided may be made under this section or § 404.2115 of this chapter, whichever is advantageous to the State VR agency that is participating in both VR programs.
[61 FR 31026, June 19, 1996, as amended at 83 FR 62461, Dec. 4, 2018]
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1075 Finding of substantial failure.

A finding of substantial failure with respect to a State may not be made unless and until the State is afforded an opportunity for a hearing.
### SUBCHAPTER XV—INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
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

 253

 299

 274

 281

 0

 0

 163

 163

 153

 177

 166

 184

 195

 207

 234

 308

 343

 388

 343

 328

 271

 180

 186

 239

 268

 290

 304

 380

 413

 0

 407

 117

 119

 121

 130

 0

 0

 120

 131

 134

 127

 99

 104

 103

 114

 121

 120

 124

 131

 127

 124

 129

 130

 128

 127

 128

 127

 126

 128

 131

 0

 124

 139

 157

 157

 164

 0

 0

 135

 140

 138

 139

 124

 114

 121

 138

 148

 158

 167

 176

 168

 168

 160

 141

 138

 141

 143

 146

 149

 162

 175

 0

 187

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 19, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### SUN CHUL LEE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1577.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 21, 2006.

Decided: July 18, 2006.

Richard W. Moore, Jr., Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Sun Chul Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reconsider its prior order denying a discretionary waiver under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subsequent to the filing of Lee’s petition for review on May 27, 2005, he filed a motion to reopen with the Board that was denied by order of October 17, 2005. Lee did not petition for review of that order.

On appeal, Lee challenges both the Board’s affirmance of the denial of his motion to reconsider and its denial of the motion to reopen. Lee may not challenge in this appeal the Board’s order denying the motion to reopen, as he did not file a timely petition for review from that order. A petitioner has thirty days to file a petition for review. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). This time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” *Stone v.*
      *298
      *INS,*514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Accordingly, because Lee did not file a petition for review within thirty days of the Board’s order denying his motion to reopen, this court’s review is limited to the Board’s order affirming the denial of the motion to reconsider.

The Board ruled that Lee did not warrant the grant of a motion to reconsider because he did not assert an error of fact or law in the challenged decision. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reconsider on this ground. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), 1003.23(b) (2006); *Jean v. Gonzales,*435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### § 404.1628 Property.

The State will have title to equipment purchased for disability program purposes. The State will be responsible for maintaining all property it acquires or which we furnish to it for performing the disability determination function. The State will identify the equipment by labeling and by inventory and will credit the SSA account with the fair market value of disposed property.

In the event we assume the disability determination function from a State, ownership of all property and equipment acquired with SSA funds will be transferred to us effective on the date the State is notified that we are assuming the disability determination function or we are notified that the State is terminating the relationship.
### GEORGIACHAMBER CE LEB R ATING A CENTURY OF LEADERSH I P

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary of Transportation US Department of Transportation 

### 1200 New Jer sey Ave SE Washington, DC 

### 20590 The Honorable John F. Kerry Secretary ofState US Department of State 

### 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 

### 20520 Dear Secretaries Foxx and Kerry: April 

### 20, 2015

On behalf of bu sinesses of all sizes and across all industry sectors throughout our state, the Georgia Chamber oft6mmerce' respectfully urges the U.S. government to take action to remedy unfair competitive practices that are hurting our state's economy and threatening jobs here and across the country. Our

### focus~ _!o ·enhance

### Georgia'**~** competitiveness by encouraging inn ovation and maintaining a positive · business climate for all our members. The massive subsidies and other unfair benefits being provided by the governments of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) fly in the face of our values. Delta Air Lines is the largest private employer in Georgia, and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce stands with E>elta and other members of the Partnership for Open and Fair Skies on this issue. Weweloome the newsthat 'the departme ilts of State-; Commerce and Transportation have opened a**com~enr** peridd to**r~v e\N** **the** subsidization of Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline. We urge you to formally requ est consu ltation s with the governments of Qatar and the UAE on this matter, and seek 

### a freeze on new capacity from the Gulf carriers to the U.S. while the consultations go forward. Fa iF, lnarkeNlfiQe n tbmp'etltion is the f0undation of our econo my. it's time to take a stand against governments that don't play by tM rules' at' the expense of ttiose who do

. Since rely, J •••• • I .• \. 

## ·. 

# ,. It• : .

I } I Chris Clark Presfdent "and CEO · · · 

### , . Georgia Chamber of Commerce



# s 10-150427-005

. 

## ' 

## . 

# .. \**1.~** I

' · I'**~'** ( · r**~** ,. I ,: I 

### . ; . ,. I W. Paul Bowus 20 1 5 Chair QuisClark President and CEO

270 Peachtree Street NW. Suit e 2200 Atbnta.**~otgia** 30303- 1240 Phone: 404
.223 .2264

Fax: 40'1.223.2290 www.gachambcr.com
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Genzyme Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/HENRI A. TERMEERHenri A. Termeer Chief Executive
OfficerMay 9, 2008 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
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

 565

 704

 707

 718

 698

 699

 855

 768

 805

 713

 718

 662

 697

 714

 699

 795

 791

 740

 781

 858

 891

 795

 621

 624

 612

 625

 675

 741

 807

 806

 1,014

 314

 339

 330

 302

 275

 273

 275

 291

 259

 243

 218

 232

 253

 242

 218

 237

 194

 209

 264

 277

 237

 275

 207

 249

 252

 253

 326

 308

 300

 269

 245

 470

 517

 534

 534

 514

 522

 546

 540

 545

 540

 533

 529

 515

 493

 472

 480

 474

 456

 500

 547

 550

 519

 463

 461

 449

 466

 484

 518

 539

 550

 592

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
# FILED Jan. 1, 1996 Cecil Crowson, Jr . Appellate Court Clerk 

### IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION A T NASHVILLE

PENNY CA MPBELL, ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs/App ellees, ) ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9507- CV-00321 VS. ) ) Davidson Circuit ) No. 93C-1547 DON SUND QUIST, Gover nor of ) the State of Tennessee, et al., ) ) Defendants/Ap pellants. )



### PARTIA L DISSENT

I respectfully dissent from part I of the majority opinion holdi ng that the appellantshave standi ng to maintain this action under the Decl aratory J udgment Act. In my opinion t his case does not involv e present ri ghts that have accrued un der presentlyexistin g facts. See Dobbs v. Guenther , 846 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn. App. 1992).

None of the plaintiffs in t his action hav e been prosecuted u nder the HPA; none of them allege that they have even been th reat ened with pr osecution. Theydo allege that they fear they will be prosecuted for engaging in conduct prohibited by th e A ct. I do not thi nk such alleg ations giv e the plaintiffs a s pecial interest in the statute as op posed to the publi c in genera l. See Parks v. Al exander , 608 S.W .2d 881 (Tenn. App. 1980) . All the co mplaint expresses is a fear that th e plai ntffswill be prosecuted i f th ey choose to vi olate the Act. Every member of the pub lic is a ff ecte d in e xactl y the s ame way.The plaintiffs' rel iance on Erwin Bi lliard Parlor v. Buckner

, 156 Tenn. 278, 300 S.W . 565 (1927) is mispla ced. In that case the plaintif fs were the owners and operators of

a legal bus iness that would be closed by the operati on of the statute in question. Their interests were diffe rent fr om the interests

of the public at l arge. Theyhad a right

under presentl y existing facts to challenge th e constitution ality of the statute.

For

these reason s the S tate's motion to dis mi ss sho uld have been granted.

II.

On the merits of

this appeal, I concur in par t III of the majori ty opinion.

______ __ __________________________ _ BEN H. CAN TRELL, JUDGE
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 ELEVATION

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 240.05

 239.84

 240.92

 239.38

 238.76

 238.65

 238.65

 238.65

 239.14

 238.65

 238.66

 239.50

 238.65

 244.75

 240.56

 239.86

 240.92

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 314

 477

 451

 597

 396

 326

 314

 314

 314

 367

 314

 315

 410

 314

 1,291

 547

 453

 597

STORAGE

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+163

-26

+146

-201

-70

-12

+0

+0

+53

-53

+1

+95

-96

+977

-744

-94

+144

CHANGE

 470

 81

 86

 84

 70

 84

 84

 82

 68

 84

 156

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 50

 0

 0

 373

 168

 157

 117

 84

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 6,080

 5,830

 5,350

 5,300

 5,300

 5,300

 5,280

 5,260

 5,240

 5,240

 5,260

 5,260

 5,280

 7,800

 12,000

 11,000

 14,300

 8,960

 7,390

 6,410

 5,930

 5,810

 9,600

 6,390

 7,090

 9,160

 7,070

 27,100

 13,200

 11,100

 12,500

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2012 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 3, 2012

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS +283 2,298 252,790

ACRE-FEET +283 4,558 501,409

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 506,100

 314

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 14

 15

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 38

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 67

 133

CORNING CANAL 133

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 4,558

TO SACTO RIVER 501,409
Date: March 11, 2016 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Enclosure A 

Rules that were Amended by the Following 

Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts 

and are Submitted as Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

District 

Butte County 

AQMD 

Placer County 

APCD 

Sacramento 

Metropolitan 

AQMD 

Ventura County 

APCD 

Rule 

Number 

300 

250 

442 

26.13 

Date 

Amended 

8/27/15 

10/8/15 

9/24/15 

11/10/15 

Title 

Open Burning, Prohibitions, 

and Exemptions (amended) 

Stationary Gas Turbines 

(amended) 

Architectural Coatings 

(amended) 

New Source Review -

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (amended)
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

DAY ELEVATION

 252.50

 252.42

 252.58

 252.57

 252.47

 252.52

 252.48

 252.49

 252.48

 252.42

 252.53

 252.48

 252.53

 252.50

 252.53

 249.08

 245.43

 242.06

 239.00

 239.02

 239.02

 238.94

 239.05

 239.29

 239.30

 239.27

 239.18

 239.31

 239.23

 239.21

 3,924

 3,884

 3,963

 3,958

 3,909

 3,933

 3,914

 3,919

 3,914

 3,884

 3,938

 3,914

 3,938

 3,924

 3,938

 2,488

 1,447

 773

 350

 352

 352

 344

 356

 385

 386

 382

 372

 387

 378

 375

STORAGE

-19

-40

+79

-5

-49

+24

-19

+5

-5

-30

+54

-24

+24

-14

+14

-1,450

-1,041

-674

-423

+2

+0

-8

+12

+29

+1

-4

-10

+15

-9

-3

CHANGE

 535

 536

 528

 495

 476

 435

 445

 454

 443

 348

 204

 219

 322

 409

 465

 144

 358

 342

 328

 346

 322

 329

 318

 326

 211

 259

 312

 264

 278

 285

 8,670

 8,430

 8,670

 9,030

 8,670

 8,190

 8,190

 8,190

 8,070

 8,070

 8,550

 8,310

 8,310

 8,310

 7,950

 8,148

 8,574

 8,288

 8,329

 8,220

 8,201

 8,108

 8,221

 9,225

 8,920

 9,188

 8,800

 8,896

 9,072

 8,902

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2005 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 14, 2006

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS -3,568 10,736 254,702

ACRE-FEET -3,568 21,295 505,201

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 529,219

 3,943

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S.

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 72

 64

 67

 47

 38

 61

 60

 49

 52

 70

 44

 39

 38

 38

 41

 44

 38

 40

 33

 34

 47

 53

 51

 39

 39

 43

 38

 30

 30

 34

 1,373

 2,723

CORNING CANAL 2,723

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 21,295

TO SACTO RIVER 505,201

Table 9
(No. 4299

#### The Haloid Company, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 19, 1950.*

Hoff and Hoff, Attorneys for Claimant.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

ScHUMAN, C. J.

The claimant, The Haloid Company, a corporation, on various dates, commencing with the 4th day of May, 1949 to and including the 27th day of May, 1949, furnished supplies to the Division of Vital Statistics and Records of the State of Illinois in the amount of $541.29.

A report has been filed by the Director of Finance that the material was furnished as claimed by the claimant, and received by the Department, but payment was not cleared before the lapse in appropriation in the 65th Biennium. Claimant comes before this Court upon stipulation waiving brief and argument.

By the repeated decisions of this Court, it has been held that where the facts are undisputed that the State has received supplies ordered by it in accordance with due authority, a.nd has used the same, and, that the bill therefor was not paid before the lapse of the appropriation out of which it could have been paid, an award for the amount may be made. *(Shell Petroleum Co.*v. *State,*7 C.R.R., 224; Shonkwiler 11 C.C.R. 602, and other cases.)

*105An award is therefore entered in favor of the claimant, and allowed in the amount of $541.29.
**EXHIBIT 12(c)**

 

#### **PACCAR and Subsidiaries**

#### ** **

**COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS**

(Millions ofDollars)

 
| ** **                                         | ** ** | Six Months Ended | ** **  |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|-------------|
| ** **                                         | ** ** | June 30               | ** **  |
| ** **                                         | ** ** | **2008**                   |        | 2007 | ** ** |
|                                               |       |                       |        |   |   |
| FIXED  CHARGES                                     |       |                       |        |   |   |
| Interest  expense - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (1)    | ** ** | **$**                      | **198.8**   |   | $ | 182.2 |   |
| Portion  of rentals deemed interest                | ** ** | **8.7**                    |        | 8.7 |   |
|                                               |       |                       |        |   |   |
| TOTAL  FIXED CHARGES                               | ** ** | **$**                      | **207.5**   |   | $ | 190.9 |   |
|                                               |       |                       |        |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                           |       |                       |        |   |   |
| Income  before taxes - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) | ** ** | **$**                      | **869.6**   |   | $ | 967.7 |   |
| Fixed  charges                                     | ** ** | **207.5**                  |        | 190.9 |   |
|                                               |       |                       |        |   |   |
| EARNINGS  AS DEFINED                               | ** ** | **$**                      | **1,077.1** |   | $ | 1,158.6 |   |
|                                               |       |                       |        |   |   |
| RATIO  OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                | ** ** | **5.19X**                  |        | 6.07X |   |

 

(1)  Exclusiveof interest, if any, paid to PACCAR.

 

(2)  Includesbefore tax earnings of wholly owned subsidiaries.

 

----