alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 12-27

                           THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Nine                  Year Ended December 31
                                                            Months      --------------------------------------------
                                                             Ended
                                                            9/30/00         1999             1998             1997
                                                            -------         ----             ----             ----
                                                                       (Millions, except for ratio)
<S>                                                       <C>            <C>              <C>             <C>
Net income.............................................   $       264    $       434      $       418     $       417
                                                          -----------    -----------      -----------     -----------

Taxes based on income:
   Income taxes........................................           118            211              260             288
   Municipal and state.................................             2              3                3               4
                                                           ----------    -----------      -----------     -----------
     Total taxes based on income.......................           120            214              263             292
                                                           ----------    -----------      -----------     -----------

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense....................................           209            284              278             282
   Allowance for funds used during
     construction......................................             -              4                -               -
   Interest factor of rents............................            26             34               34              34
                                                           ----------    -----------      -----------     -----------
     Total fixed charges...............................           235            322              312             316
                                                           ==========    ===========      ===========     ===========

Earnings before taxes based on income
   and fixed charges...................................   $       619    $       970      $       933     $     1,025
                                                          ===========    ===========      ===========     ===========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                               2.63           3.01             3.18            3.24
</TABLE>
#### § 7.30 Post-approval product audit.

Upon request by MSHA but no more than once a year except for cause, the approval-holder shall supply to MSHA at no cost up to fifty feet of each approved design of brattice cloth and ventilation tubing for audit.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37000

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

JUSTIN CHARLES BUCHANAN

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublishe d Opinion No. 529

Filed: June 28, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District , State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with three years determinate, for trafficking in marijuana , and five years, with two years determinate, for delivery of a controlled substance, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Elizabeth A. Koeckeritz, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Justin Charles Buchanan was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, Idaho Code § 37

-
2732B(a)(1) , and delivery of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37

- 2732(a). The district court

imposed concurrent, unified sentences of fifteen years, with three years determinate, for

trafficking in marijuana, and five years, with two years determinate, for each of two counts of

del ivery of a controlled substance

. Buchanan appeals, contending that the sentences are

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for t he trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 101 4

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Buchanan ’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
### **CHAPTER 12—VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL WATERS OF UNITED STATES**

Sec.
191.
Transferred.
191a.
Transfer of Secretary of Transportation's powers to Secretary of Navy when Coast Guard operates as part of Navy.
191b, 191c. Repealed.
192.
Transferred.
193.
Repealed.
194.
Transferred.
195.
Definitions.
196 to 198. Transferred.
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

OP318

Little Snake River

Vermillion Bluffs

Lookout

MountainM

onument

Hill

Sevenmile Ridge

TwoBar

Spring

Sheepherder

Springs

Coffeepot

Springs

Spence

Spring

Lang

Spring

67 3±

67 3± 6

7 3±

126

3±

126

3±

126e

3±

80 3±

52 3± 46 3±

46 3±

67b

3±

75 3±

75 3±

75 3±

75 3±

66 3±

66 3±

66 3±

21 3± 26 3±

75e

3± 75

s

3± 66

n

3±

66w3±

127

3±

48 3±

66n

3±

4w 3±

4 3±

!

!

!Cr

a

i

g

M

a

y

b

e

l

l

H

a

m

i

l

t

o

n

£¤40

£¤40

OP13

OP318

1

0

N3±

OP13

MoffatCounty

01246

Miles

Althoughthedatapresentedwithinthismap,andthemapitself,

havebeenprocessedsuccessfullyoncomputersofBLM,no

warranty,expressedorimplied,ismadebyBLMregardingthe

useofthismaporthedatarepresented,nordoesthefactof

distributionconstituteorimplyanysuchwarranty.

SandWash

HerdManagementArea

·

Kiosk

!

SandWashCorrals

!(

Springs

WildHorseLoop

Roads

Paved

Gravel

Dirt

SandWashHMA

OpenArea

SurfaceManagementStatus

Private

StateLandBoard

BureauofLandManagement
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Presidential Documents 81775 

Memorandum of December 10, 2020 

Providing an Order of Succession Within the Office of Personnel Management 

Memorandum for the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform 

Act of 1998, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq. (the ‘‘Act’’), it is hereby 

ordered that: 

Section 1. Order of Succession. Subject to the provisions of section 2 of 

this memorandum and to the limitations set forth in the Act, the following 

officials of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in the order listed, 

shall act as and perform the functions and duties of the office of Director 

of OPM (Director) during any period in which both the Director and the 

Deputy Director of OPM have died, resigned, or otherwise become unable 

to perform the functions and duties of the office of Director: 

(a) Chief of Staff; 

(b) General Counsel; 

(c) Associate Director, Employee Services; 

(d) Chief Management Officer; 

(e) Chief Financial Officer; 

(f) Associate Director, Retirement Services; and 

(g) other Associate Directors in the order in which they have been appointed as such. 

Sec. 2. Exceptions. (a) No individual who is serving in an office listed 

in section 1 of this memorandum in an acting capacity, by virtue of so 

serving, shall act as Director pursuant to this memorandum. 

(b) No individual listed in section 1 of this memorandum shall act as 

Director unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the 

Act. 

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President 

retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting Director. 

Sec. 3. Revocation. The Presidential Memorandum of August 12, 2016 (Designation of Officers of the Office of Personnel Management to Act as Director 

of the Office of Personnel Management), is hereby revoked. 

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This memorandum is not intended to, and 

does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable 

at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, 

agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC3
81776 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Presidential Documents 

(b) You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in 

the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 10, 2020 

[FR Doc. 2020–27893 

Filed 12–15–20; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 6325–39–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC3Trump.EPS</GPH>
Exhibit
32





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 the Annual Report of Integra Bank Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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
Company.





/s/ Michael J. AlleyChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      4, 2010/s/ Michael B. CarrollChief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      4, 2010
### §4043. Preservation of remedies

Nothing in section 4041 or 4042 of this title shall be construed to preclude or limit any remedy otherwise available under other law, including consequential and punitive damages.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title VIII, §803, as added Pub. L. 111–275, title III, §303(a), Oct. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 2877.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 597b of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### KAZIS v. LOFT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 6, 1903.)

1. Landlord and Tenant — Summary Proceedings — Jurisdiction.

Where in summary proceedings the landlord merely alleged that he was the “landlord” oí the premises occupied by the tenant, and did not describe his interest therein, as required by Code, § 2235, the court acquired no jurisdiction to issue a warrant of removal.

2. -Same — Warrant of Removal — Injunction.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2265, providing that summary proceedings may be stayed by injunction granted in an action, etc., an injunction was properly granted to restrain the execution of a removal warrant granted in an action in which the justice acquired no jurisdiction by reason of a defect in the pleadings, where plaintiff showed that his term had not expired and that irreparable damage would accrue to him if the warrant was not stayed.

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Suit by Demetrius Kazis against George W. Loft to restrain defendant from executing a warrant of removal in summary proceedings to dispossess plaintiff as a tenant. From an order continuing injunction pendente lite, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant, and, after a trial, a final order in summary proceedings was granted directing his removal, and a warrant was issued. He appealed from the order, but, as there was no power in the trial court to stay the execution of the warrant, he also applied for an injunction. He alleged that his term had not ended, and that the summary proceedings taken against him by the defendant were void because the justice presiding in the municipal court had not acquired jurisdiction. It appeared that the defendant, in. his petition in the proceedings in the municipal court, had merely alleged that he was the “landlord” of the premises occupied by the plaintiff, and did not describe his interest in the premises, stating the facts as required by section 2235 of the Code.

The following is the opinion of the Special Term:

' “LEVENTRITT, J. The plaintiff should have an injunction under section 2265 of the Code. The papers show that the justice, under the circumstances disclosed, went beyond his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the *1016proceeding, owing to fatal jurisdictional defects. Kiernan v. Reming, 7 Civ. Proc. R. 312; Schneider v. Leizman, 57 Hun, 561, 11 N. Y. Supp. 434; Broadwell v. Holcombe, 4 Civ. Proc. R. 159. The plaintiff shows that irreparable damage would accrue to him, and there is some indication that the entire proceedings have been oppressive. Motion to continue injunction granted, with $10 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.”

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McLAUGH-LIN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.

Alexander Brough, for appellant.

Andrew J. Shipman, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### McCOY v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 15, 1905.)

Action by Ryerson McCoy against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
<PAGE 1>
                                                           EXHIBIT 21


                      NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                        AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                      ----------------------------------
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                            AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1997


                                                        STATE OR
                                                       COUNTRY IN
                                                         WHICH
                                                       SUBSIDIARY
                                                       ORGANIZED
                                                       ----------
Subsidiary included in the financial
  statements, which is 100% owned:
    Navistar International Transportation Corp.         Delaware


Subsidiaries that are 100% owned by Navistar
  International Transportation Corp.:
    Navistar International Corporation Canada            Canada
    Navistar Financial Corporation                      Delaware


     Subsidiaries and corporate joint ventures not shown by name in the
above listing, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary,
would not constitute a significant subsidiary.









































                              E-10
# C_2023337EN.01000101.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11193 – BAOSTEEL / SAUDI ARAMCO / PIF / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 337/01)

On 18 September 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11193. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11193. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32473

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Frederick C. LOPEZ

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 31 January 2018

________________________

Military Judge: Christopher A. Santoro.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 2 months, 

and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 10 April 2017 by SpCM convened at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom. 

For Appellant: Major Todd M. Swensen, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Major Mary 

Ellen Payne, USAF; Major Meredith L. Steer, USAF.

Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 

866(c). 
United States v. Lopez, No. ACM S32473

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

KATHLEEN M. POTTER

Acting Clerk of the Court
AUTHORIZATION

        Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints each of John M. Lowber, Bonnie J. Paskvan, and Alfred J. Walker,
signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to:

(1) execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity
as an affiliate of General Communication, Inc. (the "Company"), Form 4, in
accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules thereunder;

(2) do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 4, complete
and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or
similar authority; and

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to,
in the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being
understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the
undersigned pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall
contain such terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such
attorney-in-fact's discretion.

        The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power
and authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever
requisite, necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights
and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of attorney and the
rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges that the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the
undersigned, are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the
undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

        This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the
undersigned is no longer required to file Form 4, with respect to the
undersigned's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the Company,
unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact.


                                   1
<PAGE>
        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to
be executed as of this 20th day of January 2003.


                                 /s/
                                 ------------------------
                                 Signature


                                 D. F. Fisher
                                 ------------------------
                                 Print Name
§ 585.226 What happens if the provisional winner fails to meet its obligations? ( a ) If BOEM determines that a provisional winner has failed to timely complete the steps outlined in § 585.225(b) or § 585.316, or has otherwise failed to comply with applicable laws, regulations, or FSN provisions, BOEM may take one or more of the following actions: ( 1 ) Decline to execute the applicable lease.
( 2 ) Decline to execute the lease for any other lease areas that the provisional winner won during the auction.
( 3 ) Require forfeiture of the bid deposit. In the event the bid deposit exceeds the amount of the winning bid, BOEM would limit the required forfeiture to the lesser amount.
( 4 ) Refer the matter to the Department of the Interior's Administrative Remedies Division for suspension or debarment review pursuant to 2 CFR part 180 as implemented at 2 CFR part 1400.
( 5 ) Pursue any other remedy available.
( b ) If BOEM declines to execute a lease with the provisional winner under paragraph (a) of this section, BOEM may decide to select a new provisional winner by either repeating the auction under § 585.224(f), or pursuant to the procedures in § 585.223(a)(8), by selecting the next highest bid submitted during the auction, or by using other procedures specified in the FSN.
( c ) BOEM's decisions under this section are appealable under § 585.118.
(June 13, 1960)

#### Burton Burk et al., Respondents, v. High Point Homes, Inc., Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted by default, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
§ 57.6102 Explosive material storage practices. ( a ) Explosive material shall be— ( 1 ) Stored in a manner to facilitate use of oldest stocks first;
( 2 ) Stored according to brand and grade in such a manner as to facilitate identification; and
( 3 ) Stacked in a stable manner but not more than 8 feet high.
( b ) Explosives and detonators shall be stored in closed nonconductive containers except that nonelectric detonating devices may be stored on nonconductive racks provided the case-insert instructions and the date-plant-shift code are maintained with the product.