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

<TABLE>



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


<CAPTION>


                                                     Nine months ended September 30,
                                                         1998           1997
                                                     (Dollar amounts in thousands)
<S>                                                       <C>            <C>    
Fixed charges:
     Interest and debt expense                        $  312,427     $  310,054
     One-third of rental expense                          26,182         25,752
     Dividends declared on preferred
         securities issued by affiliates                  42,231         29,975
                                                      ----------     ----------
         Total                                        $  380,840     $  365,781
                                                      ==========     ==========

Earnings:
     Net income- continuing operations                $  430,263     $  342,811
     Provision for income taxes                          229,091         94,292
     Fixed charges                                       380,840        365,781
                                                      ----------     ----------
         Total                                        $1,040,194     $  802,884
                                                      ==========     ==========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          2.73           2.19
                                                      ==========     ==========

</TABLE>
# C_2016078EN.01000801.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/8

---

Appeal brought on 23 December 2015 by the Czech Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases T-659/13 and T-660/13 –Czech Republic v Commission

(Case C-696/15 P)

(2016/C 078/09)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | annul Regulation No 885/2013 (1) and Regulation No 886/2013 (2) in their entirety, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation No 885/2013 (1) and Regulation No 886/2013 (2) in their entirety, and

1

2

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | annul Articles 3(1), 8 and 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 885/2013 and Articles 5(1), 9 and 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 886/2013, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 3(1), 8 and 9(1)(a) of Regulation No 885/2013 and Articles 5(1), 9 and 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 886/2013, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal: breach of the principle of legal certainty. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that the obligations under Regulation No 885/2013 and Regulation No 886/2013 do not apply to a Member State which has not yet decided to deploy in its territory the applications and services of intelligent transport systems, even though that conclusion does not follow from those regulations.

Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In the judgment under appeal the General Court erred in law by reaching the conclusion that, when the Commission adopts acts under delegated powers, it has a wide enough discretion for it not to have to remain within the bounds of the specific delegating provisions.

Third ground of appeal: procedural errors before the General Court. In the judgment under appeal the General Court badly distorted several arguments put forward by the Czech Republic, and there were some arguments of the Czech Republic which it did not address at all. Those procedural errors had a fundamental effect on the General Court’s assessment of the pleas in law.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6.

2

---
(logo) Grant Thornton

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

|  

 

 

  | **Audit • Tax  •Advisory**

**Grant Thornton LLP**

1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

T 816.412.2400

F 816.412.2404 |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Board of Directors 

Situs Holdings, LLC

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying CertificationRegarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria(“Management’s Assertion”), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the“Company”) complied with servicing criteria set forth in Items1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S.  Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Operating or Trust AdvisorServices Platform (the “Platform) as of and for the year ended December31, 2016. The platform consists of asset-backed transactions and securitiesdefined by management in Appendix B of Management’s report. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selectedasset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform andevaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to thosetransactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing maynot have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transactionor security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to theperiod covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examinationdoes not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with theaforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Kansas City, Missouri 

February 28, 2017
# C_2018022EN.01000302.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Robeco Hollands Bezit NV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

(Case C-658/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(14) - Definition of ‘regulated market’ - Scope - System in which the participants are brokers representing investors and ‘open end’ investment fund agents required to execute orders relating to their funds))

(2018/C 022/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Robeco Hollands Bezit NV, Robeco Duurzaam Aandelen NV, Robeco Safe Mix NV, Robeco Solid Mix NV, Robeco Balanced Mix NV, Robeco Growth Mix NV, Robeco Life Cycle Funds NV, Robeco Afrika Fonds NV, Robeco Global Stars Equities, Robeco All Strategy Euro Bonds, Robeco High Yield Bonds, Robeco Property Equities

Applicants:

Defendant: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘regulated market’ within the meaning of that provision covers a trading system in which multiple fund agents and brokers represent, respectively, ‘open end’ investment funds and investors, the sole purpose of which is to facilitate those investment funds in their obligation to execute the purchase and selling orders for shares placed by those investors.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

1

---
Danielle Lewis - Fwd: Clarification about Duke Energy CBI Claim 

 

Please log this email in as justification for lifting duke's CBI claim. 

Sent from my smartphone 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: Ronald Jordan <Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov> 

Date: May 9, 2012 8:12:54 AM EDT 

To: Thomas.Finseth@erg.com

Cc: Jezebele Alicea <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>, Eric Strassler 

<Strassler.Eric@epamail.epa.gov> 

Subject: Fw: RE: Clarification about Duke Energy CBI Claim

-----Forwarded by Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US on 05/09/2012 08:12AM ----- 

======================= 

To: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Craig, Nathan D" <Nathan.Craig@duke-energy.com> 

Date: 05/09/2012 07:13AM 

Cc: "Velte, John S" <John.Velte@duke-energy.com> 

Subject: RE: Clarification about Duke Energy CBI Claim 

======================= 

 Ron, 

After reviewing the information with our contractor, we do not consider the chemical usage 

information associated with the Allen Steam Station and the Belews Creek Steam Station as 

CBI. 

Thank you for following up, 

Nathan Craig 

Environmental Specialist III 

Water Management Group 

Office Phone: 704-382-9622 

Cell Phone: 704-315-8187 

Fax: 704-382-1681 

-----Original Message-----

From: TJ Finseth <thomas.finseth@erg.com>

To: Danielle Lewis <Danielle.Lewis@erg.com>

Date: 5/9/2012 9:53 AM

Subject: Fwd: Clarification about Duke Energy CBI Claim

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\DLewis\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FAA3EB2DO... 5/9/2012
From: Ronald Jordan [mailto:Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 2:07 PM 

To: Craig, Nathan D 

Cc: Thomas Finseth; Jezebele Alicea; Eric Strassler 

Subject: Clarification about Duke Energy CBI Claim 

Good afternoon, Nathan -- 

On April 30, 2012, you submitted confidential business information (CBI) claims and 

substantiation related to the engineering data associated with the Miami Fort Station as part 

of EPA's CWA 308 monitoring program. At that time, EPA did not receive any CBI claims 

associated with the Allen Steam Station or the Belews Creek Steam Station. However, on 

February 7, 2011, when you submitted the engineering data associated with the CWA 308 

monitoring program, you identified the chemical usage information for all three plants (i.e., 

Allen Steam Station, Belews Creek Steam Station, and Miami Fort Station) as CBI. 

Please confirm that you do not consider the chemical usage information associated with the 

Allen Steam Station and the Belews Creek Steam Station as CBI. 

Regards, 

Ron 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\DLewis\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FAA3EB2DO... 5/9/2012
**
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  
I, Frederic F. Brace, the Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company") certify that to the bestof my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2004 of the Company (the "Report"):(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.      /s/ Frederic F. BraceFrederic F. BraceUnited Air Lines, Inc.Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJuly 30, 2004

**
(Reap. Dec. 8823)

#### City of Paris Dry Goods Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 12058, etc.

(Decided June 12, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to various classes of merchandise exported from France and entered at the port of San Francisco.

The cases have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of the decision in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 696, Reap. Dec. 8590, the record in which was incorporated herein by consent. In that case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

An agreed set of facts, included in. the stipulation of submission, establishes that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is statutory foreign value, and that such value for each of the items in question is the appraised value “less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
April 26, 1971

No. 71-19

#### Gerald E. Simmons, SGT, U. S. Marine Corps Reserve v COL H. R. Smith, USMC, Commanding Officer, MATSG-90, et al.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed as moot.
Order entered November 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01646-CV

IN RE GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRST GROUP AMERICA, AND MARC D. 

HARRIS, Appellant

Mandamus from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02930

ORDER

The Court has before it Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court requests that 

Real Party in Interest and Respondent file any responses by December 10, 2013.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.1



           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350
                        as adopted pursuant to
            SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                      Chief Executive Officer

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Todd Shipyards
Corporation (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal quarter ending December 29,
2002 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 31, 2003, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and (ii) information contained in the periodic report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the periods covered in the Report.



By:
    Stephen G. Welch
    Chief Executive Officer



January 31, 2003
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

[x] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission file number 0-2666

250 WEST 57th ST. ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

A New York Limited Liability Company 13-6083380

(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization) Identification No.)

60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ].  No [  ] .

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act) Yes [  ]  No [ X ] .

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.

Large Accelerated Filer [ ]  Accelerated Filer [ ]  Non-Accelerated Filer [ ]  

Smaller Reporting Company [X]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements.

250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.

(A Limited Liability Company)

Condensed Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50258

Summary Calendar

 

LONNIE D. CLARK; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

KARLA ROLEN CLARK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; U.S. ARMY 

ENGINEER DISTRICT; FORT WORTH MID-BRAZOS

PROJECT; LOUIS A. BRUNETT, Reservoir 

Manager; UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT AGENTS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-99-CV-20

- - - - - - - - - -

November 27, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Karla Rolen Clark appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of the defendants in her civil rights

complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). She argues that

the above-named defendants-appellees conspired to deprive her of

her due process and equal protection rights by threatening to
No. 00-50258

-2-

revoke her boathouse permit. She also argues that the Army Corp of

Engineers’ regulations governing boathouse permits violates the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Finally, Clark asserts that

the district court erred by denying her motion to have an

independent arbitrator appointed to settle the dispute over the

permit. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and

we find no reversible error. Clark’s due process, equal

protection, and ADA claims are without merit. See Augustine v.

Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1984); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d

1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994). Additionally, Clark has failed to show

that the district court erred by denying her request for the

appointment of an arbitrator. See United Steel Workers of Am. v.

Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960). The district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.
# C_2017309EN.01000601.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Jan Šalplachta

(Case C-670/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Access to justice in cross-border disputes - Directive 2003/8/EC - Minimum common rules relating to legal aid granted for such disputes - Scope - Legislation of a Member State providing that the costs of translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application are not reimbursable))

(2017/C 309/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Jan Šalplachta

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3, 8 and 12 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, read together, must be interpreted as meaning that legal aid granted by the Member State of the court hearing the particular case, in which a natural person domiciled or resident in another Member State has submitted a legal aid application in the context of a cross-border dispute, also covers the costs paid by that person for the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of that application.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

1

---