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

                                                            TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
                                                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                                    -In Thousands-


					                        9 Months
                                             Ended    ----------------------12 Months Ended---------------------------
                                            Sept. 30,  Sept. 30,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,   Dec. 31,
                                               2000       2000       1999       1998       1997       1996       1995
                                             -------    -------    -------    -------    -------    -------    --------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>

FIXED CHARGES:
  Interest on Long-Term Debt                 $50,229    $67,281    $66,836    $72,672    $66,247    $59,836    $69,174
  Other Interest (1)                          $7,096    $10,574    $13,081    $13,207    $ 9,640    $11,721    $ 9,113
  Interest on Capital Lease Obligations (2)  $90,315    $91,663    $82,414    $81,823    $83,019    $84,383    $83,986
                                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                         $147,640   $169,518   $162,331   $167,702   $158,906   $155,940   $162,273



NET INCOME                                   $33,136    $67,644    $73,475    $41,676    $83,572   $120,852    $54,905

LESS:
  Extraordinary Income - Net of Tax               $0    $22,597    $22,597         $0         $0         $0         $0
                                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------    --------
NET INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS        $33,136    $45,047    $50,878    $41,676    $83,572   $120,852    $54,905

ADD (DEDUCT):
  Income Taxes - Operating Expense           $ 7,944     $2,811    $18,268    $18,372    $19,297     $9,795     $8,920
  Income Taxes - Other                        $5,790     $6,043     $4,082     ($ 794)  ($41,401)  ($91,950)  ($29,356)
  Total Fixed Charges                       $147,640   $169,518   $162,331   $167,702   $158,906   $155,940   $162,273
                                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
TOTAL EARNINGS BEFORE TAXES
AND FIXED CHARGES                           $194,510   $223,419   $235,559   $226,956   $220,374   $194,637   $196,742



RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES             1.317      1.318      1.451      1.353      1.387      1.248      1.212



(1)  Excludes recognition of Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used During Construction.

(2)  Capital Lease Interest Paid from Statement of Cash Flows.

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL EZEQUIEL SILVERIO

ROMERO, AKA Manuel E. Romero, AKA Manuel Romero Silverio,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72959 Agency No. A088

- 659

- 305

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019 **
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.
Manuel Ezequiel Silverio

- Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 72959

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent th at

deference is owed to the BIA’ s inte rpretation of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453
F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006)

. We deny the pet ition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that , even if credible, Silverio

- Romero
failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a
parti cular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of
members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’”) (citation
omitted) . Thus, Silverio

- Romero ’ s asylum and withholding of removal claim s fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Silverio

- Romero failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured3 16

- 72959

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 ( 9th Cir. 2009)

. Silverio

- Romero’s request to terminate proceedings , set fort h in Docket
Entry No. 29 , is denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160

- 62 (9th
Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appeal need not include time and date information to
vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0927 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-SW-052-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Emerson *versus*Noble.

The penalty for selling prohibited liquor, without license, may be incurred, although the sale was upon credit, and although the law furnishes to the seller no means of enforcing payment for it.

Exceptions from the District Court.

Debt, upon the statute of 1846, chap. 105, to recover a penalty for a sale by the defendant, of prohibited liquor, with-. out license.

The plaintiff’s evidence was in substance, that, at the defendant’s place of business, one Sargent called upon the defendant for a pint of brandy, telling the defendant he had no money then, but promising to pay for it; and *that*the defendant furnished it, but was never paid for it.

The Judge ordered a nonsuit.

Luques, for the plaintiff.

*Wilkinson,*for the defendant.

The facf¡s show no sale, but merely a gift. Act of 1846, chap. 205, sect. 1 and 5 ; Story on Contracts, sect. 778.

Even if a sale was intended, no sale was effected.

In order to a sale, there must be payment, or a remedy to enforce a payment. No payment was made to the defendant, and the law prohibits any suit to recover it. Sect. 10 ; *Commonwealth*v. *Thayer, 8*Mete. 525.

When the plaintiff’s evidence could not warrant the jury in finding a verdict for,him, it is lawful for the Judge to direct a nonsuit. *Pray*v. *Garcelon,*17 Maine, 145.

Wells, J.

It is *contended on*the part of the defendant, that the action cannot be sustained, because, as the price of the liquor could not be recovered, there was not a contract of sale. It is true, that according to the principles of the common law, in a sale of property there must be a valuable consideration, and if it be voluntarily transferred without such consideration, it is a gift.

The price of the liquor sold in violation of law could not be recovered, for such recovery is prohibited in .express teims *381by the Act of 1846, chap. 205, sect. 10, and if paid, it can be recovered back by virtue of the provisions of the eleventh section of the same Act. The intention of the Legislature must be gailered from the whole Act, not only in relation to its provisions generally, but as to the meaning of the words, which it employs. The purpose is manifest to inflict a penalty upon the sale of liquor without license, and to prohibit a recovery of the price when sold on credit. And the statute considers a sale as having taken place, although the liquor is not paid for on delivery, but by the agreement, payment is to be made at a subsequent time. The inability of the seller to coerce payment by legal process, does not in contemplation of the statute so far change the character of the transaction, as to prevent it from being considered a sale. It is not a gift, for there is an expectation that the price will be paid.

The facts stated in the bill of exceptions are sufficient to authorize a jury to find a sale of liquor, within the meaning of the language used in the statute, and these facts should have been submitted to them for their determination.

*The nonsuit is taken off, and a new trial granted.*
#### Reed *versus*Gilbert, *Administrator.*

One of several heirs, to whom land and personal estate descended, may be a witness for the administrator, after having conveyed his interest in the land, and released to the administrator *as such,*his interest in the personal property.

An inventory of property duly returned to the Probate Office, is proof, *prima facie,*that no other property belonged to the estate.

Exceptions from the District Court.

Assumpsit against an administrator on an account against the intestate.

The inventory exhibited one lot of land and some personal property, belonging to the estate. The defendant offered one of the heirs as a witness. The plaintiff objected to his admissibility. The defendant then showed, that the witness had conveyed his interest in said lot of land to a third person, and had released to the administrator, *as*such, his interest in the personal property. It was not shown, that there was any other land belonging to the estate.

Rice, J. admitted the witness, and the verdict was for the defendant.

*Merrill,*for the plaintiff.

The heir was interested to defeat this claim against the estate. His distributive share would thereby be enlarged.

His deed of land was only of a single lot. There might be other lands belonging to the estate.

Neither did his release to the administrator discharge his interest in the personalty. For the administrator was but a trustee of the heirs. A release of property to one’s own trustee does not diminish the interest of releasor, *the, cestui que trust.*

Gilbert, for the defendant.

Wells, J.,

orally.—The inventory is to be considered, *prima fade,*as embracing all the land belonging *to*the estate. It was not shown, in this case, that any land descended to the witness except that which he conveyed. It is not an *unseen*
      *520and *mere possible*interest, which excludes a witness; it must be an *apparent*one. The deed therefore was a sufficient discharge of the witness’ interest as to real estate.

What disposition the administrator would be bound to make of the avails of the personalty, need not now be determined. But in no event could a suit against him be maintained by this witness for his share. Such a suit would be barred by the release.

*Exceptions overruled.*
WIND RESOURCE MAPPING FOR UNITED STATES 

OFFSHORE AREAS 

WIND RESOURCE MAPPING FOR UNITED STATES 

OFFSHORE AREAS

Dennis Elliott and Marc Schwartz 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory • Golden, Colorado 

Offshore Wind Mapping Project Offshore Wind Mapping Regions Methodology for Estimating Offshore

Wind Potential • Objective is to develop high-resolution validated wind resource maps for 

priority regions up to 50 nautical miles offshore • Build GIS database elements – East coast areas from Maine to northern Florida – 50 m wind power class 

– Western Gulf of Mexico (Texas and Louisiana) – Water depth 

– Distance from shore – Great Lakes – Offshore administrative units 

• Project is jointly funded by DOE/NREL, states, and other organizations •Datasets created by Mineral Management Service 

– Wind resource modeling performed by AWS Truewind using MesoMap • Wind resource grid cells (numerical model) system – 200 m x 200 m size – Validation of model data conducted by NREL and collaborators using – Classified by GIS elements available measurement data and other information 

• Final Products 

• Offshore wind potential estimates will be made by state and other criteria – Tables of wind resource by state 

– Documentation and publication of materials 

Major Data Sets for Offshore Wind Georgia Offshore Wind Mapping

Assessment and Validation of 

• Georgia is the first offshore region to be mapped

Model Results • Jointly funded by Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority and 

DOE/NREL 

• Meteorological station data from National Climatic Data Center, National 

• Preliminary wind resource estimates based on model output data Data Buoy Center, and other sources (unvalidated) from AWS Truewind – Coast Guard stations, lighthouses, coastal marine automated 

network, offshore platforms and towers, buoys • NREL, in collaboration with Georgia Institute of Technology and

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, is analyzing the available – Airports and military bases (island or coastal only) measurement data for validation of the preliminary map estimates 

• Other wind data 

• Preliminary wind resource estimates will be revised based on validation – Ocean satellite-derived wind speed estimates (QuikSCAT and SSMI results to produce final wind maps data sets) 

• Offshore wind potential estimates will be produced for specified criteria – Sodar, Lidar, and Radar measurements (limited availability) 

– Weather-balloon stations (island or coastal only) 

Georgia Preliminary 90 m Offshore Wind Speed 

Georgia Wind Measurement Sites 

The information contained in this poster is subject to a government license. • WINDPOWER 2006 • Pittsburgh, PA • June 4–7, 2006 • NREL/PO-500-39971 

Savannah

Light Station

– Reanalysis upper air data (model-derived) 

Savannah •Anemometer height —

33 m above sea level Light Station 

•Preliminary analysis of wind Speed and data indicate Class 4 wind Power resource at this site by Month 

Savannah

Light Station

U.S. Navy Speed

by Hour Tower R2 

Anemometer height —

50 m above sea level

Savannah

Light Station

Frequency

and Speed

by Direction
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November      5, 2008 |  /s/ CHRISTOPHER J.      EPERJESY                                      |
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   | Christopher      J. Eperjesy                                                |
|                                   | Vice      President – Finance, Chief Financial Officer and  Treasurer |
<PAGE> 1
Exhibit 31a
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael E. Batten, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Twin Disc,
Incorporated;

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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 second fiscal quarter in the case of
this quarterly 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 officers 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 registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      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
controls over financial reporting.



Date: February 8, 2006                      /s/ MICHAEL E. BATTEN
                                            Michael E. Batten
                                            Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 30, 2012 

t0123 

Order 

 

January 30, 2012 

143763 

IN RE PETITION OF WAYNE COUNTY 

TREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE 

_________________________________________ 

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143763 

 COA: 303928 

Wayne CC: 10-006738-CH 

CRYSTAL HOWERY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 54866.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 147770-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
       
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<CASH>                          239
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                239
<PP&E>                          1,232,821
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,200,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  65,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           6,324,126
<BONDS>                         20,437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        38,258,096
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    65,258
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                398,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,184,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,582,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,582,406)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,582,406)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.04)
        

</TABLE>