alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1
 BFC Financial CorporationCalculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(Dollars in thousands)
 Years ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Fixed charges:Interest
    
    $
    151,169
    
    
    
    196,479
    
    
    
    166,578
    
    
    
    146,062
    
    
    
    88,901Eliminate BankAtlantic Bancorp and
and Woodbridge
    
    
    (151,169
    )
    
    
    (196,479
    )
    
    
    (166,578
    )
    
    
    (145,716
    )
    
    
    (87,730
    )Pre tax 5% Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    638$
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,567
    
    
    
    1,809Earnings (loss):(Loss) income from continuing operations
before income tax
    
    $
    (329,453
    )
    
    
    (321,077
    )
    
    
    12,179
    
    
    
    146,553
    
    
    
    173,317Eliminate BankAtlantic Bancorp and
Woodbridge
    
    
    320,563
    
    
    
    314,373
    
    
    
    (19,042
    )
    
    
    (153,022
    )
    
    
    (174,881
    )Eliminate other partnerships
    
    
    (42
    )
    
    
    77
    
    
    
    67
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    (4,114
    )BankAtlantic Bancorp/BankAtlantic and
Woodbridge dividends
    
    
    208
    
    
    
    1,759
    
    
    
    2,350
    
    
    
    2,191
    
    
    
    1,925Fixed charges
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,567
    
    
    
    1,8095% Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (750
    )
    
    
    (750
    )
    
    
    (750
    )
    
    
    (750
    )
    
    
    (392
    )$
    (8,253
    )
    
    
    (4,397
    )
    
    
    (3,975
    )
    
    
    (3,447
    )
    
    
    (2,336
    )Ratio
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Coverage deficiency
    
    $
    9,474
    
    
    
    5,618
    
    
    
    5,196
    
    
    
    5,014
    
    
    
    4,145
EXHIBIT 8.1

List of Subsidiaries





|Name                                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Ownership Interest
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------
|                                                |  |                               |  |                   
|Compañía Minera Mexicana de Avino, S.A. de C.V. |  | Mexico                        |  | 99.67%            
|                                                |  |                               |  |                   
|Promotora Avino S.A. de C.V.                    |  | Mexico                        |  | 79.09%            
|                                                |  |                               |  |                   
|Oniva Silver and Gold Mines S.A. de C.V.        |  | Mexico                        |  | 100%              
|                                                |  |                               |  |                   
|Bralorne Gold Mines Ltd.                        |  | Canada                        |  | 100%
F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

L U D W I N I S R AE L L O P E Z - A G

U I L A R , P etitioner ,
v . W I L L I A M P. B A R

R , Attorney General, Respondent. N o. 17-73153 Ag ency No. A074-394-680
ORDER

F iled August 29, 2019 B efore: Susan P. Graber and Marsha S. B erz on, Circuit J udg es, and J ohn R. Tunheim, * District J u d g e .

ORDER Petitioner’s petition for panel reheari n g , D o c k et Entry No. 36, is G RANTED

. The opinion filed April 23, 2 0 1 9 , a nd r e p orted at 921 F .3d 898, is hereby withdrawn. The court will f ile a new opinion in due c o u r se. B ecause the court’s opinion is w ithdrawn, the p etition for rehearing en banc is D E NIED as moot. Once a new o pinion is filed, furt h e r petitions for rehearing

and rehearing

en banc may

be filed.

* T h e Ho n o rab le J o h n R. T un h eim , Un ited States D i s t r i ct J u d g e f or th e District o f

Min n eso ta, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n .
#### Sada Platt, Appellant, v. George G. Trattner et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for malpractice, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 18, 1960, which denies her motion to vacate a settlement of the action and to restore the action to its regular place on the Trial Calendar; and which also directs her to submit a general release to the defendants. Order modified by striking *528out the provision directing plaintiff to submit a general release. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The sole contention advanced by plaintiff in support of her motion was set forth in an affidavit by her attorney, such contention being that the plaintiff did not acquiesce in the settlement. In our opinion, on the record before us, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to sustain her contention. In denying plaintiff’s motion, however, the learned Special Term was not authorized to direct the plaintiff to execute and deliver a general release. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BIN SHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73046

Agency No. A200

- 269

- 614

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges.

Bin Shen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigra tion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

* 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). 

# F ILED

JUN 1 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73046

Zehatye v. Gonzales

, 453 F.3d 1182, 11 84

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006) , and w e deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if credible,

Shen failed to demonstrate the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of

persecution. See He v. Holder , 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant must

show “substantial evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced

abortion); Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019

- 21 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did

not compel the conclusion that petition er suffered past persecution)

. S ubstantial

evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Shen did not establish a fear of

future persecution in China based on the past family planning incidents

. See Gu

,

454 F.3d at 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not “present compelling, objective

evidence demonstrating a well

- founded fear of persecution .”). Thus, his asylum

claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### §4401. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Congress hereby finds and declares that—

(1) the United States, as a member of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations, participated in development by that Commission of the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and on the Special Equipment to be Used for Such Carriage;

(2) the agreement requires that equipment involved in the international carriage of perishable foodstuffs be inspected, tested, and certified to specified standards;

(3) this chapter will make it possible for equipment in the United States to be inspected, tested, and certified in accordance with the agreement and the standards specified therein; and

(4) this chapter will improve the conditions for the movement of perishable foodstuffs in international carriage in equipment owned or operated by United States firms, which will serve to protect existing trade and promote expansion of trade in perishable foodstuffs, and will improve the sale of United States manufactured equipment for use in international carriage.

(Pub. L. 97–325, §2, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1603.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in pars. (3) and (4), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 97–325, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1603, known as the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 97–325, §1, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1603, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter and section 2212c of this title, amending sections 5315 and 5316 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, repealing section 3 of Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1953, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 2212c of this title] may be cited as the 'International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Act'."
#### In the Matter of County of Oneida et al., Respondents, v Peter A. A. Berle, Individually and as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated at Special Term, O’Donnell, J. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Supreme Court-art 78). Present-Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ. [91 Misc 2d 694.]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-13T08:45:29-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### Irene Papain, Appellant, v. American Insurance Company, Respondent.

In an action on a personal property floater insurance policy to recover the value of certain furs lost by theft, the insured plaintiff appeals: (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 1, 1962, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice; and (b) from the judgment of said court, entered March 5, 1962 on such order. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. A prior action, commenced within the one-year limitation contained in the policy, had been dismissed on March 1, 1961 for lack of prosecution. The present (second) action was commenced within one year after such dismissal, but more than a year after the loss. The motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that the action was not brought within a year after the loss, as required by the policy. In our opinion, this second action was properly dismissed. It was not saved by the provisions of section 23 of the Civil Practice Act *(Loomis*v. *Girard Fire & Mar. Ins. Co.,*256 App. Div. 443). In the ease *(Rogers*v. *Home Ins. Co.,*95 F. 109) relied on by plaintiff, the policy condition was different from the one at bar. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 552.67 Life insurance policy content. Insurance policies offered and sold on Army installations must— ( a ) Comply with the insurance laws of the States or country in which the installations are located. The applicable State insurance commissioner will determine such compliance if there is a dispute or complaint.
( b ) Contain no restrictions because of military service or military occupational specialty of the insured, unless restrictions are clearly indicated on the face of the policy.
( c ) Plainly indicate any extra premium charges imposed because of military service or military occupational specialty.
( d ) Not vary in the amount of death benefit or premium based on the length of time the policy has been in force, unless it is clearly described therein.
( e ) For purposes of paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, be stamped with an appropriate reference on the face of the policy to focus attention on any extra premium charges imposed and on any variations in the amount of death benefit or premium based on the length of time the policy has been in force.
( f ) Variable life insurance policies may be offered provided they meet the criteria of the appropriate insurance regulatory agency and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
( g ) Show only the actual premiums payable for life insurance coverage.
#### FRANKLIN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & QUEENS COUNTY RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Josephine T. Franklin against the New York & Queens County Railway Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10.costs and disbursements.
§ 935.103 Motions and pleas. ( a ) Upon motion of the accused at any time after filing of the information or copy of citation, the Court may order the prosecutor to allow the accused to inspect and copy or photograph designated books, papers, documents, or tangible objects obtained from or belonging to the accused, or obtained from others by seizure or process, upon a showing that the items sought may be material to the preparation of his defense and that the request is reasonable.
( b ) When the Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to try the accused as charged, it shall require the accused to identify himself and state whether or not he has counsel. If he has no counsel, but desires counsel, the Court shall give him a reasonable opportunity to procure counsel.
( c ) When both sides are ready for arraignment, or when the Court determines that both sides have had adequate opportunities to prepare for arraignment, the Court shall read the charges to the accused, explain them (if necessary), and, after the reading or stating of each charge in Court, ask the accused whether he pleads “guilty” or “not guilty”. The Court shall enter in the record of the case the plea made to each charge.
( d ) The accused may plead “guilty” to any or all of the charges against him, except that the Court may in its discretion refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and may not accept a plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.
( e ) The accused may plead “not guilty” to any or all of the charges against him. The Court shall enter a plea of not guilty if the answer of the accused to any charge is such that it does not clearly amount to a plea of guilty or not guilty.
( f ) The accused may, at any stage of the trial, with the consent of the Court, change a plea of not guilty to one of guilty. The Court shall then proceed as if the accused had originally pleaded guilty.
#### § 69.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for the establishment and operation of elected School Boards for schools operated by the Department of Defense (DoD) under 10 U.S.C. 2164, 32 CFR part 345, and Public Law 92-463.
EXHIBIT 99.1**Certifications pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to****Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**

906 Certificate of Chief Executive Officer

               In connection with the Annual Report of Scitex Corporation Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Yeoshua Agassi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            1. The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 19, 2003

|   | s/ Yeoshua Agassi         |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Yeoshua Agassi            |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

**IMPORTANT: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Scitex Corporation Ltd. and will be retained by Scitex Corporation Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

906 Certificate of Chief Financial Officer

            In connection with the Annual Report of Scitex Corporation Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Yahel Shachar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            1. The Annual 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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 19, 2003

|   | s/ Yahel Shachar          |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Yahel Shachar             |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

**IMPORTANT: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Scitex Corporation Ltd. and will be retained by Scitex Corporation Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

****
February 14, 2011

U.S. Department of Education

ACCELERATING THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

For our education system to deliver the results our students deserve, we must take advantage of new tools 

and strategies that can help all students learn. New technologies can enhance and complement instruction, 

and can give students access to resources and learning opportunities they would otherwise have never had the 

opportunity to enjoy. But technology should not just be an isolated program – it must be a tool that is 

integrated into everything we do in education, dramatically enhancing the impact and feasibility of reforms 

across the education sector. 

The President’s 2012 budget request and Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) will promote proven and promising approaches to using technology in schools, classrooms, and 

homes to support all students in learning to their full potential.

 $835 million for the Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete Education programs, 

which will support States and districts in identifying how best to meet the academic needs of their 

students and teachers across the subject areas, including through the development, implementation, 

and evaluation of innovative uses of technology for teaching and learning. We will also target funds 

for the creation of high-quality digital education content.

 $2.5 billion for Effective Teachers and Leaders formula grants, which will support more 

professional development opportunities for teachers, including in using technology effectively in the 

classroom.

 Larger set-asides from the $14.8 billion College- and Career-Ready Students program

(formerly Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies) for building State and district capacity to 

support instruction, which may include through the use of technology.

 In the $300 million Investing in Innovation fund, the Department will give priority to applicants 

proposing promising or evidence-based uses of education technology. 

 $90 million for a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education, which will foster 

breakthrough developments in educational technology and learning systems, support systems for 

educators, and tools that result in improvements in student outcomes.

 $372 million for the Expanding Educational Options programs, which will support districts in 

implementing specific approaches to expanding educational options for students, including through 

online learning programs and innovative, autonomous school models, including those that embrace 

the power of technology to transform learning.

 Improving assessment technology. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 

Administration invested $350 million in developing the next generation of assessments that will fairly 

and accurately assess student learning, including by making greater use of computer-based testing. 

We will continue this investment in high-quality assessments that measure critical thinking skills and 

that take advantage of technology through the $420 million Assessing Achievement program.
### §415d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 17, 1928, ch. 602, §3, 45 Stat. 594, related to rules and regulations for and deposit of receipts under former sections 415b to 415d of this title, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
### §§368 to 368b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 368, act Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314, §3, 24 Stat. 441, as amended, was transferred to section 361c of this title. For provisions of section 368 which provided for assistance and advice by the Secretary of Agriculture, see section 361g of this title.

Section 368a, act Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314, §5, 24 Stat. 441, as amended, was transferred to section 361e of this title. For provisions of section 368a which authorized appropriations for investigations and experiments, see sections 361c and 361d of this title.

Section 368b, act Mar. 8, 1887, ch. 314, §9, 24 Stat, 442, as amended, was transferred to section 361i of this title. Former provisions of section 368b making grants of money authorized by section 368a of this title subject to the legislative assent of the States and Territories were eliminated from section 361i.