alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
                                                                                               EXHIBIT 12

                                                    CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
                                    Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                                   (in thousands except ratio data)

<CAPTION>

                                                                                                  Twelve
                                                                                                  Months
                                                             Year Ended December 31,              Ended
                                                -----------------------------------------------
                                                  1997      1998      1999      2000     2001     3/31/02
                                                  ----      ----      ----      ----     ----     -------
<S>                                            <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
  Operating Income                             $251,319  $282,787  $293,985  $307,098  $295,731   $287,024
  Adjustments
    Income Taxes                                 39,329   126,738    83,508    84,329   188,922    194,278
    Provision for Deferred Income Taxes          34,458    (8,328)   19,938    16,263   (72,568)   (83,229)
  Deferred Investment Tax Credits                (4,819)   (3,858)   (5,207)   (5,207)   (5,207)    (5,207)
  Charges for Investments and Plant
   Development Costs, net of Tax                 (1,281)     -         -         -         -          -
  Other Income and Deductions                     7,834       709     8,113     7,235     1,954        304
  Allowance for Borrowed and Equity Funds
   Used During Construction                       3,778     2,822     4,532     6,216     7,804      6,860
                                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------   --------
  Earnings                                     $330,618  $400,870  $404,869  $415,934  $416,636   $400,030
                                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========   ========

Fixed Charges:
  Interest on Long-term Debt                   $105,081  $ 93,301  $ 87,413  $ 96,212  $ 86,980   $ 88,017
  Interest on Short-term Debt                    20,613    19,506    19,498    22,830    25,023     23,514
  Distributions on Trust Preferred Securities     7,533    12,000    12,000    11,940    11,208     10,966
                                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------   --------
     Fixed Charges                             $133,227  $124,807  $118,911  $130,982  $123,211   $122,497
                                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========   ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 2.48      3.21      3.40      3.17      3.38       3.26
                                                   ====      ====      ====      ====      ====       ====
</TABLE>
#### 648.201 Clauses for supply or service contracts.

The authority to determine exemptions prescribed in FAR 48.201(a)(6) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the head of the contracting activity.

[55 FR 5775, Feb. 16, 1990]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Carlos MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50382

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Martinez-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
### SCPR-18-0000525

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN RE THOMAS P. RACK, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C

. J

. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J

. )



### Upon consideration of the petition to resign and surrender his license to practice law in the State of Hawai # i, filed by attorney Thomas P. Rack pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude Petitioner Rack has complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Thomas P. Rack, attorney number 3894, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, July 17, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-18-0000525 17-JUL-2018 12:24 PM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII
901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

February 16, 2012

James V Kean
2418 Mary Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68112

RE: SAID: 40430
2418 Mary Street
Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

Dear Owner/Resident:

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 2418 Mary Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency

Enclosures
Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

# I llllll lllll ll11111IlIlI Il1 

# Il1 4043 0

LEGEND: H 

### - N 

### - P 

### - 01 

### - 40430 

### I Samples Analyzed

Sample Number Lead Loading StructurelFeature Substrate Color Deteriorated
Area

--LlM&cmz 

# 3 n2 

## 3* 

## 10 mycrn2 

## O n2 

## \7. Gz0 m@rn2 

## 1 v

ft"
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE BALANCE SHEET
AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              20
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      435
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                          9
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   499
<PP&E>                                           6,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              736
<BONDS>                                            959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           735
<OTHER-SE>                                         148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,206
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,052
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    239
<INCOME-TAX>                                        89
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CMAS Update

Nick Parsons 

to: 

Cortney_Higgins 

11/29/2012 01:39 PM 

Cc: 

Penny Lassiter, Paul Versace, JohnB Chamberlin 

Hide Details 

From: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB 

Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

2 Attachments 

Hi Cortney, 

We made some additional revisions to one of the comment responses regarding the ability of a 

facility to incorporate production flexibility into a title V permit. A revised preamble (one redline 

strikeout from the 11/20 version, one clean) are attached. 

Thanks, 

Nick 

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121129.doc

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121129 Clean.doc

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web6110.h... 12/6/2012
#### 309.403 Definitions.

The following definition applies to this subpart:

*The HHS Suspension and Debarment Official* is the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability (OGAPA).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 206 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 206

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue 
        Service relating to ``Required Minimum Distributions''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 2024

Mr. Palmer submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue 
        Service relating to ``Required Minimum Distributions''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to ``Required 
Minimum Distributions'' (89 Fed. Reg. 58886 (July 19, 2024)), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated May 23, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-216425) of Smart Trust 317, comprising
Smart Trust, Sustainable Impact Investing Trust, Series 10.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


May 23, 2017
Exhibit 32.1

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
Cincinnati Bell Inc. (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), I, John F. Cassidy, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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/ John F. Cassidy                  
|John F. Cassidy                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|February 25, 2010
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Improving Rural Teacher Retention: Developing Localized Strategies to Address Teacher Working Conditions      

# Resource: Improving Rural Teacher Retention: Developing Localized Strategies to Address Teacher Working Conditions

This fact sheet (PDF, 2 pages) describes eight categories that may influence a teacher's decision to stay or leave. District leaders may consider developing strategies to address these factors to support teacher retention. **Learn more.**
Exhibit 31-1



Certification

I, Wesley W. von Schack, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Energy East Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: August 5, 2004 | /s/Wesley W. von Schack      Wesley W. von Schack
      Chairman, President &
        Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### YANG CHU, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER,* Respondent.

No. 06-3616-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2007.

*113Robert J. Adinolfi, Louis & Adinolfi LLC, New York, N.Y., for Appellant.

Sarah Maloney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. PETER W. HALL and Hon. DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as the respondent in this case.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yang Chu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a July 13, 2006, BIA order (“2006 BIA Order”) denying his claim for protection under the CAT. *In*re *Yang Chu,*No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 13, 2006), *aff'g*No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2001). He also requests remand for determination of the likelihood of torture based on his illegal emigration from China. We assume the parties’ and counsel’s familiarity with the facts and the procedural history of this case, and the scope of the issues presented by this petition.

The 2006 BIA Order provides an adequate and logically separate finding that petitioner is ineligible for CAT relief because the factual assertions underlying his CAT claim are not credible. We have already determined, in an earlier decision in this matter, that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, upon which the 2006 BIA Order is based, was supported by substantial evidence. *See Yang Chu v. Gonzales,*155 Fed.Appx. 536, 537 (2d Cir.2005). We therefore deny the petition with respect to the CAT claim.

The petitioner’s argument regarding the consequences of his illegal emigration from China has been raised for the first time in this petition. “If the government points out to the appeals court that an issue relied on before that court by a petitioner was not properly raised below, the court must decline to consider that issue.... ” *Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*480 F.3d 104, 107 n. 1 (2d Cir.2007). Because the government has noted Chu’s failure to exhaust the issue of illegal emigration penalties, we decline to address this issue. *Id.*at 115.

The petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is hereby DENIED.