alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 12
 MSW ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Unaudited, in thousands of dollars)
 For the Period
    
    
    
    For the Period
    
    
    For thefrom
    
    
    
    from
    
    
    NineJune 25
    
    
    
    January 1
    
    
    Monthsthrough
    
    
    
    through
    
    
    EndedSeptember 30,
    
    
    
    June 24,
    
    
    September 30,2005
    
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004EARNINGS:Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations for
minority interest in consolidated subsidiary
    
    $
    34,967
    
    
    
    $
    (2,901
    )
    
    $
    38,139Less earnings attributable to Ref-Fuel prior to consolidation
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (6,545
    )$
    34,967
    
    
    
    $
    (2,901
    )
    
    $
    31,594Add (deduct):Fixed charges
    
    
    17,280
    
    
    
    
    31,517
    
    
    
    34,587Distributed earnings of Covanta Ref-Fuel Holdings prior
to consolidation
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    31,374Earnings, as adjusted
    
    $
    52,247
    
    
    
    $
    28,616
    
    
    $
    97,555FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense
    
    $
    17,280
    
    
    
    $
    31,517
    
    
    $
    34,587Fixed charges
    
    $
    17,280
    
    
    
    $
    31,517
    
    
    $
    34,587RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
    
    
    3.02x
    
    
    
    
    0.91x
    
    
    
    2.82x
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrantand have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 19, 2007 /s/  Ian T. Bothwell   Ian T. Bothwell,  Chief Financial   Officer (Principal Accounting andFinancial Officer) of Rio Vista GP LLC,the general partner of Rio Vista EnergyPartners L.P.
No. 58092.

protests 200955-K, etc. (Galveston).

#### Herman Kaiser Pipe & Supply Co. and R. W. Smith et al. *v.*United States,

*493Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of seamless steel casings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Humble Oil & Refining Co. et al.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Cc. 32, C. D. 1577), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

SLR PARTNERS, LLC and ROZI MEDICAL DEVICES LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., Defendant-Appellee

.

. ____________________

2010-1188

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in no. 09-CV-1145, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J ONATHAN H ANGARTNER , X-Patents, APC, of La Jolla, California, argued for pl aintiffs-appellants.

J OHN C. O’Q UINN , Kirkland & Ellis LLP of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were D ANIEL F. A TTRIDGE , E DWARD C.
D ONOVAN and N ATHAN S. M AMMEN

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (G AJARSA
, L INN , and Prost, Circuit Judges ).AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 12, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
#### Sheila B. Goldberg, Respondent, v Barton L. Goldberg, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 491]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about August 5, 1994, which, upon a partial grant of plaintiff’s motion, declared that the judgment in the parties’ matrimonial action is a final and binding one and that attorney’s fees would not be awarded to either party or any attorney in the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court appropriately determined that the parties’ New York judgment of divorce is final and binding. While the claim for expert and counsel fees was previously severed, a severed cause of action does not impair the finality of the remaining judgment *(Scarab Equities Corp. v 684 Owners Corp.,*216 AD2d 43; *Grullon v Servair, Inc.,*121 AD2d 502, *lv denied*
      *23469 NY2d 608). In any event, in the interim, plaintiff had waived her right to expert and counsel fees, and the court properly declared the issue closed. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8406 

To add Ireland to the E3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Mr. LAWLER (for himself and Mr. MULLIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To add Ireland to the E3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Opportunity 

5 for Hibernians Act’’ or the ‘‘AOH Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. E–3 VISAS FOR IRISH NATIONALS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the 

8 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

9 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or, on a 

10 basis of reciprocity as determined by the Secretary of 

11 State, a national of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8406 IH

1 (b) EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.—Section 212 of the 

2 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (t) 

5 (as added by section 1(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 108– 

6 449 (118 Stat. 3470)) as subsection (u); and 

7 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (t)(1) 

8 (as added by section 402(b)(2) of Public Law 108– 

9 77 (117 Stat. 941)) the following: 

10 ‘‘(E) In the case of an attestation filed 

11 with respect to a national of Ireland described 

12 in section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), the employer is, 

13 and will remain during the period of authorized 

14 employment of such Irish national, a partici15 pant in good standing in the E-Verify program 

16 described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immi17 gration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

18 Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).’’. 

19 (c) APPLICATION ALLOCATION.—Paragraph (11) of 

20 section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

21 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)) is amended to read as follows: 

22 ‘‘(11)(A) The Secretary of State may approve 

23 initial applications submitted for aliens described in 

24 section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) only as follows: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8406 IH

1 ‘‘(i) For applicants who are nationals 

2 of the Commonwealth of Australia, not 

3 more than 10,500 for a fiscal year. 

4 ‘‘(ii) For applicants who are nationals 

5 of Ireland, not more than a number equal 

6 to the difference between 10,500 and the 

7 number of applications approved in the 

8 prior fiscal year for aliens who are nation9 als of the Commonwealth of Australia. 

10 ‘‘(B) The approval of an application de11 scribed under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be 

12 deemed for numerical control purposes to have 

13 occurred on September 30 of the prior fiscal 

14 year. 

15 ‘‘(C) The numerical limitation under sub16 paragraph (A) shall only apply to principal 

17 aliens and not to the spouses or children of 

18 such aliens.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Richard D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 83]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.), entered February 16, 1995, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and conditionally discharged him for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The eyewitness testimony of two Housing Authority employees that respondent and other youths were jumping on Housing Authority vehicles that were seriously damaged as a result, and attempted to flee when the employees approached, was legally sufficient to support a finding that respondent acted in concert with corespondent and others to intentionally cause damage to the vehicles, the natural consequence of their conduct *(see, Matter of Moises O.,*189 AD2d 687; *People v Quinones,*162 AD2d 175, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 863). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
No. 58642.

protest 230662-K (New York).

#### Wm. M. Allison & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
#### In the Matter of Christina P. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused and/or Neglected. Jay Scott P., Appellant; Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 554]

unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Lisa E.*[appeal No. 1], *1022207 AD2d 983). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.—Abuse and Neglect.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
No. 53629.

protests 104491-K, etc. (New York).

#### Equitable Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-KSB of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Richard J. Morgan, President and Chief
Executive Officer of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, 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 such, fairly presents such Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2003, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.

 /s/ Richard J. Morgan
-------------------------------------
Richard J. Morgan
President and Chief Executive Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 6, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-16168

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00051-CR-002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

TRACY KAPRICE COTTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(July 6, 2005)

Before ANDERSON, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy Kaprice Cotton appeals her 108-month sentence for attempt to

manufacture more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
2

§ 846, arguing that the district court erred, in light of United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by enhancing her sentence based

on facts that were not proven to a jury or admitted to by her, and by applying the

Guidelines as mandatory. 

Because Cotton raised a constitutional objection to her sentence before the

district court based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159

L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), we review the constitutional issue de novo, but will reverse

only for a harmful error. See United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir.

2005). A constitutional error is harmless if “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt

that the error complained of did not contribute to the sentence obtained.” Id.

(quotation and alteration omitted). The government bears the burden to show that

any error was harmless. Id. We have noted that “the party bearing the burden

faces a difficult challenge” when “we simply do not know what sentence the

district court would have imposed absent the error.” United States v. Robles, No.

04-13598, manuscript op. at 8 (11th Cir. May 10, 2005); see also United States v.

Davis, 407 F.3d 1269, 1271-72 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the government

could not meet its burden when “[w]e simply do not know what the sentencing

court would have done had it understood the guidelines to be advisory rather than

mandatory, and had properly considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”).
3

Because Cotton preserved her constitutional objection by timely raising it

before the district court, the burden is on the government to show beyond a

reasonable doubt that this error was harmless. See Paz, 405 F.3d at 948. Because

there is no clear indication of what sentence the district court would have imposed

had it known the Guidelines were advisory only, we hold that the government has

not met its burden to show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing consistent with Booker. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### Albert V. Tillman, *Appellant, v.*The Buffalo and Idaho Gold and Silver Mining Company, *Respondent.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Hardin, J.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESTER A. FERREIRA, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORT OF STOCKTON,

Defendant.

___________________________/

No. 2:04-cv-1916-MCE-DAD

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

Plaintiff, the Court has determined that this case is settled as

to Defendant, Port of Stockton only. In accordance with the

provisions of Local Rule 16-160, dispositional documents are to

be filed on or before July 28, 2006. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 120 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 5, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01916-MCE -DAD Document 120 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 10.7 -- Amendment to the Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant
                Lease -- Net, dated as of January 24, 2000, by and between
                Copperhill Development Corporation and TrueTime, Inc.

                                  AMENDMENT #1
                                     TO THE
           STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL SINGLE TENANT LEASE -- NET
                             DATED JANUARY 24, 2000
                                 BY AND BETWEEN
     COPPERHILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (LESSOR)
                                      AND
                 TRUETIME INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION (LESSEE)

1. Commencement Date:  The new commencement date shall be December 15, 2000 and
   ending on December 14, 2015. The parties shall further amend the Lease if the
   actual commencement date is different than as stated in this paragraph.

2. Rent Schedule/Rental Increases:  The existing Lease shall hereby be modified
   so that on the first anniversary of this Lease, (month 13) and every
   anniversary thereafter, including any option periods, the base rent shall
   increase by the percentage change in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose metro
   area C.P.I. index, all urban consumers, however, the annual increase shall
   never exceed 2.5%, nor shall the adjusted base rent ever be less than the
   base rent paid in the previous period.

3. All other terms and conditions shall remain the same.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                         <C>
Agreed:                                                     Agreed:

Lessee:                                                     Lessee:

              /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]                                       /s/ JOHN E. DUTIL
-----------------------------------------------------       -----------------------------------------------------
         Copperhill Development Corp., Inc.                                    TrueTime, Inc.
Date:  10/30/00                                             Date:  10/31/00
</TABLE>
# F ourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00199

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.C.F., ET AL CHILDREN

,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 11406 Honorable Richard E. Price, Judg e Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 20, 2018, we received notification from the trial cour t reporter advising us that she has received approximate payment for preparation of the repor ter’s record on July 19, 2018. Accordingly, the reporter’s record is due on or before August 18, 2018. Appellant’s brief is due thirty days after the reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
| Name: Baofeng Hongchang Coal Mining Co., Ltd.            |   | Mineral Resource: Coal                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Address: Zhaozhuang Village, Daying Town, Baofeng County |   | Underground Mining                     |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Mine: Hongchang coal mine                                |   | Production: 150,000 metric ton/year    |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Type of Company: Limited Liability Company               |   | Size of Mine: 0.6534 square kilometers |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Effective Period: From July 6, 2007 to September 6, 2013 |   |                                   |

|   | 1.   | 3754482.00, 38392585.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 2.   | 3754542.00, 38392268.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 3.   | 3754630.00, 38392216.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 4.   | 3754640.00, 38392200.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 5.   | 3754606.00, 38392145.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 6.   | 3754560.00, 38392000.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 7.   | 3754560.00, 38391865.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 8.   | 3754682.00, 38391865.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 9.   | 3754687.00, 38391640.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 10.   | 3753542.00, 38391944.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 11.   | 3753542.00, 38392471.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 12.   | 3753637.00, 38392406.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 13.   | 3753610.00, 38392330.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 14.   | 3753891.00, 38392330.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 15.   | 3753891.00, 38393230.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 16.   | 3754064.00, 38392268.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 17.   | 3754218.00, 38392536.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 18.   | 3754206.00, 38392640.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 19.   | 3754196.00, 38392640.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 20.   | 3754313.00, 38392600.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 21.   | 3754345.00, 38392645.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|