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



                                                                      EXHIBIT 12



<TABLE>

                TRANSAMERICA FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<CAPTION>
 
                                                 Three Months Ended March 31
                                                  1998               1997
                                                (Dollar amounts in millions)

<S>                                                <C>               <C>  


Fixed charges:
  Interest and debt expense                     $     94.3       $     81.9
  One-third of rental expense                          6.5              6.3
                                                ----------       ----------
       Total                                    $    100.8       $     88.2
                                                ==========       ==========

Earnings:
  Income from continuing operations             $     27.5       $     35.1
  Provision for income taxes                          14.2             19.1
  Fixed charges                                      100.8             88.2
                                                ----------       ----------
       Total                                    $    142.5       $    142.4
                                                ==========       ===========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    1.41             1.61
                                                      ====             ====

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20030

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ISMAEL SOLARES-GARCIA, also known as Ismael Solares Garcia, also known

as Roberto Perez,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-565-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ismael Solares-Garcia has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Solares-Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-20030 Document: 00512401506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
No. 13-20030

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-20030 Document: 00512401506 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-3 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment
of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName: Jason KulasTitle: President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 23, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7465 

WILLIAM ERIC FORD, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General;

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (6:06-cv-02401)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Eric Ford, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka

SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Eric Ford, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief, 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

August 23, 2007. The notice of appeal was dated September 25,

2007, and filed on October 1, 2007.* Because Ford failed to file

a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of

the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-55,762-10
EX P ARTE JOSE P H BARNARD HINES, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 809892-B IN THE 180T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated sexual
assa u l t and sentenc ed to imprisonment for life. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Hines v. State , No. 14-99-01384- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [ 14th Dist.] Feb. 8, 2001) (not designated f

or publication). On October 8, 2014, we dismiss ed this application without written order
. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 4. Applicant has now filed a motion to rec onsider. His motion is g rante d. The2

October 8 dismiss al i s withdrawn. I f he decide s to supplement the habea s rec ord, Appli cant shall file hi s evidenc e i n t h e t rial court within 30 day s of t he date of t his order
. No ex tensions shall be g rante d. Filed: April 1, 2015 Do not publish
Exhibit 15.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-174698 on Form S-8 of our report dated June 28, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Bona Film Group Limited, its subsidiaries, its variable interest entities (the VIEs) and its VIEs subsidiaries (collectively, the Group), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Bona Film Group Limited for the year ended December 31, 2010.      Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. Beijing, the Peoples Republic of China June 28, 2011
(Reap. Dec. 8372)

#### J. T. Steeb & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2193.

(Decided December 21, 1954)

*Lawrence & Tuttle,*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The merchandise covered by this appeal consists of sheathing felt imported from England, which is such or similar to the sheathing felt involved in *US v. Morse et al.,*decided in ARD 38 and ARD 45, and therein held to be subject to appraisement upon the basis of export value. The record in said case is hereby incorporated herein.

> 2) Sheathing felt such as or similar to the sheathing felt covered by this appeal was freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at the prices stated during the respective periods, viz.:

> Period of exportation Per crate of 10 rolls of sheathing felt 25 yds. long by 32 inches wide

> January 26, 1953, to date_ £11-15-0

> Less nondutiable charges as invoiced

> 3) There was no higher foreign value during the respective periods, and upon this stipulation the appeal herein may be deemed submitted, it being limited to sheathing felt.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sheathing felt here involved, and that such value was sterling 11/15/0 per crate of 10 rolls of sheathing felt, 25 yards long by 32 inches wide, less nondutiable charges as invoiced.

*565Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2008021EN.01002001.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/20

---

Call for proposals for the ESPON 2013 Operational Programme

(2008/C 21/11)

Under the ESPON 2013 Programme four calls for proposals and expressions of interest have been opened on 21 January 2008.

Please visit: www.espon.eu for further information.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q for the period ended September 29, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           59,884
<SECURITIES>                                     72,083
<RECEIVABLES>                                   279,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (6,048)
<INVENTORY>                                     256,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                685,135
<PP&E>                                          706,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (299,773)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,648,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           326,527
<BONDS>                                         586,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        193,894
<OTHER-SE>                                      448,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,648,261
<SALES>                                       1,042,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,042,288
<CGS>                                           703,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   215,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (5,698)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               26,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 103,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                     34,359
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              68,668
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     68,668
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.70
        

</TABLE>
|   | (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 company, 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) | [Reserved]; |
|--------|-----|-------------|

|   | (c) | Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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 |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (d) | Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Elias Deftereos            |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Elias Deftereos          |   |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LEWIS R. ROWE, JR., 

Petitioner, 

 

 CASE NO. 2:12-cv-141

v.

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

TIMOTHY BUCHANAN, WARDEN, Magistrate Judge Kemp

 

Respondent.

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court to consider a Report and

Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on September 6, 2012. 

No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. 

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The

petition is DENIED because the two claims (claims one and three)

which are actually described in the petition have been procedurally

defaulted. This case is therefore DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: October 5, 2012 s/James L. Graham 

James L. Graham

United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00141-JLG-TPK Doc #: 12 Filed: 10/05/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### August F. Stauff & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6378.

Entry No. 715128, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, August 15, 1941, etc.

Certified August 18, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 20, 1941, etc.

(Decided September 26, 1946)

*Daniel P. McDonald*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts in the record before me establish export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)) to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 12 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 12

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
                         of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2005

  Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Thune, Mr. Talent, Mr. 
Alexander, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, 
  Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
Cornyn, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
 Enzi, Mr. Frist, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. 
 Lincoln, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Santorum, 
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Warner, Mr. Bond, 
    Mr. Bunning, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. 
   Hutchison, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. 
  Snowe, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Stevens) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
                         of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within 7 years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article --

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
IIA 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 40 

Authorizing the printing and binding of a supplement to, and revised edition 

of, Senate Procedure. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. BYRD) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the 

third time, and passed 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing and binding of a supplement to, 

and revised edition of, Senate Procedure. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PRINTING OF SUPPLEMENT TO, AND REVISED 

4 EDITION OF, SENATE PROCEDURE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each of the following documents 

6 shall be prepared under the supervision of Alan Frumin, 

7 Parliamentarian and Parliamentarian Emeritus of the 

8 Senate, and shall be printed and bound as a Senate docu9 ment: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 40 CPS 

1 (1) A supplement to ‘‘Riddick’s Senate Proce2 dure’’, to be styled ‘‘Frumin’s Supplement to 

3 Riddick’s Senate Procedure’’. 

4 (2) A revised edition of ‘‘Riddick’s Senate Pro5 cedure’’, to be styled ‘‘Frumin’s Senate Procedure’’. 

6 (b) COPIES.—One thousand five hundred copies of 

7 each document described in subsection (a) shall be printed 

8 for distribution to Senators and for the use of the Senate. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS