alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
                                                                                                   EXHIBIT 12
                     COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
     Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                    (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      Twelve
                                                                                                      Months
                                                                  Year Ended December 31,             Ended
                                                    1995       1996       1997      1998       1999   6/30/00
<S>                                               <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . . $66,811    $59,711     $55,156    $47,323   $43,207  $41,715
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . .   8,829     12,125      15,525     23,594    25,878   25,879
  Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . .   1,328      2,400       5,104      3,493     2,460    2,570
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . .   4,657      4,374       4,729      4,459     4,659    4,786
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . .   4,100      4,600       4,100      5,300     4,600    4,600
       Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . $85,725    $83,210     $84,614    $84,169   $80,804  $79,550

Earnings:
  Net Income (Loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$110,616   $107,108    $119,379   $133,044  $150,270 $151,099
  Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . .  58,648     60,302      69,760     71,202    82,686   83,463
  Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .       7         11           6          3        89       84
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . .  85,725     83,210      84,614     84,169    80,804   79,550
       Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$254,996   $250,631    $273,759   $288,418  $313,849 $314,196

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . .    2.97       3.01        3.23       3.42      3.88     3.94


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1974 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the energy investment 

tax credit for electrochromic glass. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2021 

Mr. HORSFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

energy investment tax credit for electrochromic glass. 

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 ‘‘Dynamic Glass Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ELECTROCHROMIC GLASS AS EN7 ERGY PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF INVEST8 MENT TAX CREDIT. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 48(a)(2)(A)(i) of the In10 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1974 IH

1 ‘‘and’’ at the end of subclause (IV) and by adding at the 

2 end the following new subclause: 

3 ‘‘(VI) energy property described 

4 in paragraph (3)(A)(ix), and’’. 

5 (b) ELECTROCHROMIC GLASS DESCRIBED.—Section 

6 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

7 the end of clause (vii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

8 (viii), and by adding at the end the following new clause: 

9 ‘‘(ix) glass which uses electricity to 

10 change its light transmittance properties in 

11 order to heat or cool a structure, but only 

12 with respect to property the construction 

13 of which begins before January 1, 2024.’’. 

14 (c) PHASEOUT.—Section 48(a)(6) of such Code is 

15 amended— 

16 (1) by striking ‘‘paragraph (3)(A)(i)’’ each 

17 place it appears and inserting ‘‘clause (i) or (ix) of 

18 paragraph (3)(A)’’, and 

19 (2) by inserting ‘‘AND ELECTROCHROMIC

20 GLASS’’ after ‘‘SOLAR ENERGY PROPERTY’’. 

21 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
AFS-14-382-E August 19, 2014

Exemption No. 5533K Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-7980

Mr. Mark J. Millam Managing Director, Saftey Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d/b/a Airlines for America 1302 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Millam:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 5533, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 9, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Transport Association of Amer ica d/b/a Airlines for America (A4A) for an extension of Exemption No. 5533, as amended. That exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CF R) allows A4A member airlines and other similarly situated part 121 operators to permit qualified flight attendants not required by § 121.391(c) to perform duties related to the safety of the airplane and its occupants during

aircraft movement on the surface.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to A4A.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 5533, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, Air Tr ansport Association of America, Inc. d/b/a Airlines for America is granted an extens ion of its exemption from 14 CFR 121.311(b) which allows A4A member airlines and other similarly situated part 121 operators to permit qualified flight attendants not required by § 121.391(c) to perform duties related to the safety of the airplane and its occupants during aircraft movement on the surface.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 5533, as amended, to October 31, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
#### Donna G. HOPSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 4383.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Mitchel M. Evans, DeRidder, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Hall, Raggio & Farrar by Richard R. Cappel, Lake Charles, for defendants-ap-pellees.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY, and PONDER, Judges.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is a companion case to Davis v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., 286 So.2d 100, in which a separate judgment is rendered by us this date. These are suits for damages for personal injuries arising out of the same automobile accident. The plaintiff, Donna G. Hopson, was the driver and plaintiff, Mrs. Debbie G. Davis, was a passenger in one of the vehicles involved. The defendant, Berlin Leger, was the driver of the other vehicle, which was owned by defendant Inland Water, Inc. and insured by defendant Allstate Insurance Company. A jury in the district court found the defendant Leger free of negligence. All plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

The decisive issue is whether the defendant Leger was negligent.

Miss Hopson and her passenger testified that on a rainy day they were proceeding in an easterly direction on a narrow blacktopped state highway, at a speed of about 40 miles per hour. They say that as they entered a sharp curve to the south, they saw defendant’s large van truck only two or three car lengths ahead and in their lane of travel. Miss Hopson testified she applied her brakes, and the rear of her automobile swung into the northbound lane, where it struck the truck which had by then returned to its proper side of the highway.

The defendant Leger testified that as he approached the curve, proceeding in a northerly direction, he suddenly saw plaintiff’s vehicle skidding sideways down the highway toward him, with its rear portion coming into his lane of travel. Leger says he applied his brakes and moved to the right-hand shoulder of the road, where he was either proceeding slowly or stopped at the time of impact.

The physical evidence shows that the left rear of the Hopson automobile struck the left front of the truck. The state trooper who investigated the accident testified that *100glass, dirt, and other debris indicated the point of impact was about three feet east of the center line of the highway and in defendant’s lane of travel. Also, the trooper found defendant’s truck left tire-marks on the shoulder which showed that both its right front and right rear wheels were on the shoulder before the impact.

We find the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the finding by the'jury that defendant Leger was free of negligence.

The factual determination of the jury, particularly when based upon evaluations of credibility of witnesses, may not be disturbed on appeal unless there is found manifest error. Hooper v. Wilkinson, 252 So.2d 137 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1971); Schram v. Castille, 223 So.2d 229 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1971); Lewis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 215 So.2d 138 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1971).

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs-appellants.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
23.1





LAKE
& ASSOCIATES, CPA’s LLC





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the use, in the report on Form 10-K of Raj Ventures, Inc. (A
Development Stage Company), of our report dated January 13, 2010 on our audit of
the financial statements of Raj Ventures, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as
of December 31, 2009, and the related statement of operations, shareholders’
equity and cash flows from inception on October 14, 2009 through December 31,
2009, and the reference to us under the caption “Experts.”





/s/Lake
& Associates, CPA’s LLC


Lake
& Associates, CPA’s LLC


Boca
Raton, Florida


March 31,
2010
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

For legislative Affairs

June 29, 2023

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy

Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Section 8438 of Title 5 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report 

to Congress on the operation and status of the Government Securities Investment Fund (the G

Fund) of the Thrift Savings Fund, part of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System, during any 

debt issuance suspension period.

Enclosed is the report covering the operation and status of the G Fund during the most recent 

debt issuance suspension period. As explained in the report, Treasury has fully restored the G

Fund to the position that it would have been in had there not been a debt issuance suspension 

period.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Davidson

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs

Enclosure

Identical Letter Sent to:

The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, House Democratic Leader 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, Senate Majority Leader 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader

Cc: The Honorable Jason Smith, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means

The Honorable Richard E. Neal, Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways and 

Means

The Honorable Ron Wyden, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance

The Honorable Mike Crapo, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance
----

|        | KPMG LLP             |                   |
|--------|----------------------|------------------------|
|   | Suite 300            | Suite 1120             |
|   | 1212 N. 96th Street  | 1248 O Street          |
|   | Omaha, NE 68114-2274 | Lincoln, NE 68508-1493 |

|   | KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. memberfirm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated withKPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

----

|   | /s/ KPMG LLP |
|--------|--------------|

----
#### Thomas L. GILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-480.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
# L_2005088EN.01000901.xml

| 7.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 88/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 88/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 535/2005

of 6 April 2005

correcting the Italian version of Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1), and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | There is an error in the Italian version of the second subparagraph of Article 34(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (2) by virtue of an amendment made by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2004. This error should therefore be corrected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

There is an error in the Italian version of the second subparagraph of Article 34(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (2) by virtue of an amendment made by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2004. This error should therefore be corrected.

| (2) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Only concerns the Italian version.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1. last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1795/2003 (OJ L 262, 14.10.2003, p. 13).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 194, 31.7.2000, p. 45. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2004 (OJ L 316, 15.10.2004, p. 61).

2

---
II 

Calendar No. 163 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2044 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 3, 2021 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 17 East Main Street in Herington, Kansas, 

as the ‘‘Captain Emil J. Kapaun Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN EMIL J. KAPAUN POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 17 East Main Street in 

7 Herington, Kansas, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Captain Emil J. Kapaun Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2044 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain Emil J. 

5 Kapaun Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 163 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2044 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostKapaun Post Office Building’’. Herington, Kansas, as the ‘‘Captain Emil J. al Service located at 17 East Main Street in 

NOVEMBER 3, 2021 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### F. A. CHASTAIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Elliot STANFORD et al., Appellees.

No. 69-1030.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 3, 1970.

*422J. Leo McShane, Miami, for appellants.

Pincus, Moss & Savitt, North Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ., and SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that the appellant has attempted to effect an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a new trial, contrary to the provision of Rule 4.2, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., is denied.

As contended by the appellees’ motion, the cited appellate rule does not contemplate interlocutory review of trial court orders denying a new trial on motion made. When taken at face value, appellees’ motion gives the initial impression of being well taken. On consideration of the papers constituting the present record before the court, however, it appears that more than a review of the order denying appellant’s motion for new trial is sought.

In State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, 196 So.2d 745 (Fla.1967), the Supreme Court had before it a notice of appeal which, on its face, indicated that it was addressed to an order denying a motion for new trial. In approving the District Court of Appeal’s refusal to dismiss the cause on the ground that the notice was addressed to a nonap-pealable order, the court stated that in testing the sufficiency of the notice the record itself should be examined. The court further held that the test of prejudice to the adversary is the essential and deciding test, citing Greyhound Corporation v. Carswell, 181 So.2d 638 (Fla.1966), p. 640.

As in the cases of State v. Allen, supra, and Greyhound Corporation v. Carswell, supra, we have examined the assignments of error in the case at bar and find that the second assignment is directed to an alleged error in the entry of the final judgment, and therefore conclude that the rule pronounced in State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, supra, precludes a dismissal of the instant appeal. There is little doubt that the notice of interlocutory appeal herein was inartfully drawn, yet artistry in the drafting of legal instruments seems no longer required under the more recent decisions of our Supreme Court.

Although this appeal is denominated as an interlocutory appeal, it seems, and.we so hold, that this matter should be treated as an ordinary appeal from the final judgment. Therefore, the parties hereto are ordered to proceed with this matter in accordance with the procedure provided in Rule 3.2, Florida Appellate Rules, et seq.
#### Edward Lee DUNCAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1856.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

*724Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

, Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs of the respective parties, we determine the trial court erred in failing to recite in the order of contempt facts constituting the contempt upon which appellant was found and adjudicated guilty. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.830. We find no merit to appellant’s remaining contention. Accordingly, the order of contempt is vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for entry of a proper order of contempt consistent with the views herein expressed.

Order vacated and set aside and remanded with direction.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                               Twelve Months Ended
                             (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     MARCH            MARCH
                                                                      2000             1999
                                                                 --------------    -------------

<S>                                                               <C>            <C>
EARNINGS
       Net Income                                                  $ 13,221          $ 43,379
       Federal Income Tax                                            34,675            23,631
       State Income Tax                                               1,861             2,577
                                                                   --------          --------

       Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax            49,757            69,587

FIXED CHARGES*                                                       31,463            34,151
                                                                   --------          --------
                 Total Earnings Before Federal and State
                    Income Tax and Fixed Charges                   $ 81,220          $103,738
                                                                   ========          ========



       * Fixed Charges

       Interest on Long-Term Debt                                  $ 26,521          $ 23,989
       Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense             1,214             1,150
       Other Interest                                                 3,728             9,012
                                                                   --------          --------

                 Total Fixed Charges                               $ 31,463          $ 34,151
                                                                   ========          ========



       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                              2.58              3.04
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
#### William MOSLEY, Jr. and Raymond O. Rice, Appellants, v. M. R. & R. TRUCKING COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. K-79.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 13, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Select Acquisition II Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Min Kuang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Min KuangMin KuangPrincipal Financial OfficerJune 29, 2011