alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
                     HOST MARRIOTT L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES(1)
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                      (in millions, except ratio amounts)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  1998  1997  1996  1995  1994
                                                  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----
<S>                                               <C>   <C>   <C>   <C>   <C>
Income from operations before income taxes....... $174  $ 83  $ (8) $(75) $(16)
  Add (deduct):
  Fixed charges..................................  415   364   283   206   184
  Capitalized interest...........................   (4)   (1)   (3)   (5)  (10)
  Amortization of capitalized interest...........    6     5     7     6     8
  Net gains (losses) related to certain 50% or
   less owned affiliate..........................   (1)   (1)    1     2     5
  Minority interest in consolidated affiliates...   52    31     6     2     1
                                                  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----
  Adjusted earnings.............................. $642  $481  $286  $136  $172
                                                  ====  ====  ====  ====  ====
Fixed charges:
  Interest on indebtedness and amortization of
   deferred financing costs...................... $335  $288  $237  $178  $165
  Dividends on convertible preferred securities
   of subsidiary trust...........................   37    37     3   --    --
  Portion of rents representative of the interest
   factor........................................   43    39    33    17    11
  Debt service guarantee interest expense of
   unconsolidated affiliates.....................  --    --     10    11     8
                                                  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----
  Total fixed charges and preferred stock
   dividends..................................... $415  $364  $283  $206  $184
                                                  ====  ====  ====  ====  ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred
 stock dividends................................. 1.54  1.32  1.01   --    --
Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges and
 preferred stock dividends.......................  --    --    --     70    12
</TABLE>
--------
(1) The financial information utillized for the computation of ratio of
    earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends represents the
    financial information of Host Marriott Corporation, predecessor to Host
    Marriott, L.P.
#### JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

(Decided February 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.

Heard,before Hon. M. Sollie.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Thomas, J.

Appeal dismissed on authority of *Tice v. State, infra,*70 South. 967.
#### In the Matter of Charles A. Steinbarge, Appellant, against Town Board of Norfolk et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 5, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*Francis E. Cullen*and *Frank L. Cubley*for appellant.

*Robert E. Whalen*and *Fred J. Flanagan*for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### § 297.21 Objections to registration application.

Persons objecting to registration by a foreign air freight forwarder or foreign cooperative shippers association shall file their objections with the Office of International Aviation, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities Division, within 28 days of the filing date of the registration forms. The Department will list the names and nationality of all persons applying for registration in its Weekly Summary of Filings.

[ER-1159, 44 FR 69635, Dec. 4, 1979, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40103, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019]
180817 ORD RE SEPT OMNI FILING AND BRIEFING VERSION AUGUST 17, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

----------------------------------------------------------x

In re: PROMESA

Title III

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered)

et al.,

Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER REGARDING FILING AND BRIEFING DEADLINES

IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2018, OMNIBUS HEARING

On August 1, 2018, the Court entered an order (Docket Entry No. 3730 in Case 

No. 17-3283-LTS) approving the Fifth Amended Notice, Case Management and Administrative 

Procedures which, among other things, rescheduled the September 12, 2018, omnibus hearing to 

September 13, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. (Atlantic Standard Time). Notwithstanding the change in date 

of the omnibus hearing, all filing and briefing deadlines in relation to the September 13, 2018,

omnibus hearing should be calculated by reference to the original September 12, 2018, omnibus 

hearing date.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

(“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3780 Filed:08/17/18 Entered:08/17/18 11:54:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24535-13 Filed:06/12/23 Entered:06/12/23 21:36:46 Desc:

Exhibit AHG Ex 13 PREPA obtains approval of USD 454.4m in FEMA allocations Page 1 of 2
PREPA obtains approval of USD 454.4m in FEMA

allocations for grid modernization (translated)

18 April 2022 | 10:03 EDT

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) has obtained

approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for

two power grid modernization initiatives totaling USD 454.4m, El Nuevo

Dia reported.

One initiative consists of nearly USD 437.8m to fund the initial process

to design and plan the recovery efforts of the electrical system from

the damage caused by Hurricane Maria, while the other is USD 16.4m to

make permanent repairs to a power plant in Mayaguez, according to

the Spanish-language newspaper.

PREPA and its transmission and distribution operator LUMA Energy

have submitted 20 projects for FEMA approval. In different reports,

both companies have indicated that they could submit more than 500

projects to be eligible for the USD 9.5bn in FEMA funds to modernize

the island's electrical infrastructure, according to the report.

Of the 20 projects submitted, 15 have been put forward by LUMA but

none have been approved, the item indicated.

As reported, the island was awarded USD 12.8bn in September 2020

from FEMA for hurricane repairs.

Debtwire Municipals notes that electric service was restored last week

after a massive power outage on April 6 left most of the island's

residents without power. LUMA expects the outage investigation to last

at least three to four months.

Link to original source (translated)

Municipals

Government

Puerto Rico

Issuer

Auditor(S)

Bondholder(S)

Claims Agent(S)

Financial Advisor(S)

Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico

KPMG

Angelo, Gordon & Co.

Aurelius Capital Management

Autonomy Capital

Banco Santander (Asset

Management And Insurance Units)

Canyon Capital Advisors LLC

Davidson Kempner Capital

Management LP

Franklin Mutual Advisers LLC

Knighthead Capital Management

Marathon Asset Management, LP

Monarch Alternative Capital LP

OZ Management LLC

Oppenheimer & Co Inc.

Senator Investment Group LP

Silver Point Capital, L.P.

Stone Lion Portfolio L.P.

Kroll Restructuring

Administration

Conway MacKenzie, Inc

Deloitte

Issuer

Bondholder(S)

Claims Agent(S)

Financial Advisor(S)

Lawyer(S)

Puerto Rico Electric Power

Authority

Angelo, Gordon & Co.

BlueMountain Capital

Management, LLC

Franklin Advisers Inc

Knighthead Capital Management

Marathon Asset Management, LP

OppenheimerFunds Distributor,

Inc.

Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC

Ankura Consulting Group, LLC

Filsinger Energy Partners

Greenberg Traurig LLP

Other

Ambac Assurance Corporation

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24535-13 Filed:06/12/23 Entered:06/12/23 21:36:46 Desc:

Exhibit AHG Ex 13 PREPA obtains approval of USD 454.4m in FEMA allocations Page 2 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 1 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 2 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 3 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 4 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 5 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 6 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 7 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 8 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 9 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 10 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 11 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 12 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 13 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 14 of 15
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2783-4 Filed:03/22/18 Entered:03/22/18 11:39:35 Desc:

Exhibit D Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Robert M. Budd, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC upon request.







Date:  July 20, 2009

By:/s/ Robert M. Budd

Robert M. Budd

Chief Executive Officer
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00369- CV

In re Ar dell Nelson, Jr.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n his pro se petition for writ of mandamus, Arde ll Nelson asks the Court to order the judge of the 331st District Court to act on Nelson’s motions for foren s i c DNA testing and appointment of counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (West Supp. 2010). Acc ording to the petition, Nelson filed the motions on November 8, 2010, but we are otherwise informed that the ac tual filing da te was D ece mber 6, 2010.

At the Court’s reque st, the State filed a response to the mandamus pet i t i o n . I n its response , the State say s that it filed a memorandum i n o p position to Nelson’s motions for DNA testing and appointment of counsel on J uly 13, 2011 (the date the State’s response was filed in this Court). See i d
. ar t
. 6 4 .02(a) (2) (g iving State six ty day s to respond to testing motion). We are confide nt that the district court, having now rec eived t h e S t at e’s response , will promptly act on Nelson’s motions. I f it does not, Nelson may file a se cond manda mus petition.Wit h that understanding , the petit ion for writ of m andamus is denied. See Tex
. R
.

App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Filed: Jul y

21, 2011

2
#### § 29.31 Removable ballast.

Removable ballast may be used in showing compliance with the flight requirements of this subpart.
#### Lawrence Hanfgarn, Respondent, *v.*George Mark, Appellant.

(Submitted November 24, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*Jesse C. Rogers*and *Sanuel Binder*for appellant.

*Reese D. Alsop et al., amici curiae.*

*Edwin G. Jenkins*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.9 Replacement and modification articles. ( a ) If a person knows, or should know, that a replacement or modification article is reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificated product, the person may not produce that article unless it is— ( 1 ) Produced under a type certificate;
( 2 ) Produced under an FAA production approval;
( 3 ) A standard part (such as a nut or bolt) manufactured in compliance with a government or established industry specification;
( 4 ) A commercial part as defined in § 21.1 of this part;
( 5 ) Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product;
( 6 ) Fabricated by an appropriately rated certificate holder with a quality system, and consumed in the repair or alteration of a product or article in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or
( 7 ) Produced in any other manner approved by the FAA.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section, a person who produces a replacement or modification article for sale may not represent that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated product.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section, a person may not sell or represent an article as suitable for installation on an aircraft type-certificated under §§ 21.25(a)(2) or 21.27 unless that article— ( 1 ) Was declared surplus by the U.S. Armed Forces, and
( 2 ) Was intended for use on that aircraft model by the U.S. Armed Forces.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-25877, Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53385, Oct. 16, 2009; Amdt. 21-92A, 75 FR 9095, Mar. 1, 2010; Doc. No. FAA-2015-1621, Amdt. 21-100, 81 FR 96688, Dec. 30, 2016]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Chase Manhattan Owner Trust 1998-C

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase USA"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of June 1, 1998 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") by and
between Chase USA and Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 1998-C, as issuer (the
"Issuer"), does hereby certify that:

      1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
         January 1, 2001 until December 31, 2001 was conducted under my
         supervision.

      2. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
         fully performed in all material respects all its obligations, under the
         Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no material
         default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is
         continuing except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

      3. None.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 25th day of March 2002.


                                             /s/ Jeffrey S. Browning
                                             ----------------------
                                             Jeffrey S. Browning
                                             Vice President
#### VEILLEUX v DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Case No. 91-0700-CA-01

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County

April 22, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert N. Harrison, Esquire, for plaintiff.

Rafael E. Madrigal, Assistant General Counsel, and Donald E. Hartery Jr., Assistant State Attorney, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BARBARA B. BRIGGS, Circuit Judge.

*FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT*

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for final hearing on the 5th *181day of April, 1991. The Court, having heard argument of counsel for both parties and being fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:

1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties to the cause and the subject matter.

2. The Plaintiff, MICHAEL J. VEILLEUX’s driver’s license was suspended for 180 days on October 13, 1990, pursuant to F.S. 322.2615.

3. If the Plaintiff is convicted of driving under the influence as a result of his arrest on October 13, 1990, the sentencing judge revoking Plaintiff’s license pursuant to section 322.28 cannot give “credit” for the period of suspension pursuant to section 322.2615. The effective date of the revocation must coincide with the date of conviction. There is no statutory or rule authority for the County Court to order a retroactive revocation of a driver’s license.

4. Paragraph 2 of the prayer for relief is moot as a result of the response to paragraph 1 and is accordingly not addressed.

5. Paragraph 3 of the prayer for relief is answered in the negative. The sentencing judge’s order of concurrent, consecutive or retroactive revocation of the Plaintiff’s driving privilege is not binding on the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES.

6. Paragraph 4 of the prayer for relief is answered in the negative. The administrative suspension under section 322.2615 is a separate and distinct result from a revocation upon conviction under section 322.28. No “credit time” is appropriate or required. There is no violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

The DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES does not “penalize” the Plaintiff with suspension of driving privileges upon arrest for driving under the influence pursuant to section 322.2615. Courts have held that the purpose of section 322.28 is to protect the public from intoxicated drivers and not to punish the offenders. Revocation of a driver’s license is not part of the sentence imposed for the DUI offense. *Smith v City of Gainesville,*93 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1957); *State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v Vogt,*489 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1991.
#### § 25.1041 General.

The powerplant and auxiliary power unit cooling provisions must be able to maintain the temperatures of powerplant components, engine fluids, and auxiliary power unit components and fluids within the temperature limits established for these components and fluids, under ground, water, and flight operating conditions, and after normal engine or auxiliary power unit shutdown, or both.

[Amdt. 25-38, 41 FR 55467, Dec. 20, 1976]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,204
<INVENTORY>                                     10,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,575
<PP&E>                                          40,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,241)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,575
<BONDS>                                        122,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,635
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           150
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,426
<SALES>                                        125,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,137
<CGS>                                          102,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,447
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## 1994 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-17-1994 

# S inno vich v . P or t Author it y of Al leghe n

y C oun t y
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 92-3135

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1994

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1994 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S inno v ich v

. P or t Author it y of Al le ghe n y C oun t y " (1994). 1994 D e cisio n s . P ape r 17. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1994/17

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________ NO. 92-3135

_______________ JUDITH ROSE SINNOVICH, Appellant

v. PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 0315-2 : 89-01524)

_______________ PRESENT: SLOVITER, Chief Judge , BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, and LEWIS, Circuit Judges .

O R D E R After further consideration, the Court hereby vacates the order of January 15, 1993 granting rehearing in banc. By the Court,
/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter

________________________________ Chief Judge
Dated: May 17, 1994