alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                            CONSOLIDATED EDISON, INC.

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                               TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                             (Thousands of Dollars)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                          SEPTEMBER    DECEMBER
                                                            2001         2000
                                                         ----------   ----------
<S>                                                      <C>          <C>
EARNINGS
  Net Income for Common Stock                            $  603,215   $  582,835
  Preferred Dividends                                        13,593       13,593
  Income Tax                                                405,295      307,168
                                                         ----------   ----------

      Total Earnings Before Federal Income Tax            1,022,103      903,596

FIXED CHARGES*                                              454,820      431,217
                                                         ----------   ----------
      Total Earnings Before Federal Income Tax
        and Fixed Charges                                $1,476,923   $1,334,813
                                                         ==========   ==========



  * Fixed Charges

  Interest on Long-Term Debt                             $  383,392   $  351,410
  Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense         12,382       12,584
  Interest on Component of Rentals                           18,814       17,697
  Other Interest                                             40,232       49,526
                                                         ----------   ----------

      Total Fixed Charges                                $  454,820   $  431,217
                                                         ==========   ==========


  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                           3.25         3.10
</Table>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00916

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 00916\00916_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00916\00916_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

00916\00916_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 00916\00916_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00916\00916_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00916\00916_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00916\Certification Statement_00916.pdf Plant certification statement

x 00916\FW EPA Questions for Caledonia.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_CCC ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram September 2010.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_CCC ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram September 2010.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_CCT COVERMEMO.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_CT FONSI - Revised for Leasing (2).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_EA Combustion Turbine.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_fonsi.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00916\Supporting Documentation\00916_INFO TABLE - NEPA CT Capacity Purchases - Cogentrix Caledo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00916\Supporting Documentation\caledonia.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# 2020 Current Law
#### Inez A. FUNDERBURK et al. v. MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR COMPANY et al.

No. 62375.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. and Montgomery Elevator Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Blue Chip Fund, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| July 1, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark |
|--------------|---------------------|
|         | Michael G. Clark    |
|         | President           |
|         | DWS Blue Chip Fund  |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Blue Chip Fund, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| July 1, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                      |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|
|         | Paul Schubert                         |
|         | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|         | DWS Blue Chip Fund                    |
Exhibit 32.1





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 Venture Lending & Leasing VI, Inc. (the "Fund") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maurice C. Werdegar, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(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 result of operations of the Fund.





/S/ Maurice C. Werdegar


Maurice C. Werdegar


President and Chief Executive Officer


March 15, 2013
#### Willie Paul BATES and Sue Nell Bates v. Hester OGLETREE.

No. 49967.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 5, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1977.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Alford, Mars & Thomas, Robert L. Thomas, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Colony Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard B. Saltzman,
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard B. Saltzman                                  
|                     |  |  |  | Richard B. Saltzman Chief Executive Officer and President

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C §1350 and shall not be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Elwood DUGAS v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.

No. 61976.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Elwood Dugas applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Lafayette. 356 So.2d 1054.

Denied.

TATE, J., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


          In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William Salek, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
section 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 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.



By: /s/ William Salek
    -----------------



Name:  William Salek
       -------------
       Chief Financial Officer



May 13, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31286]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Glen Canyon Technical Work Group

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Amended Notice of Public Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Glen Canyon Technical Work Group (TWG) was formed as an 
official subcommittee of the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group 
(AMWG) on September 10, 1997. The TWG members were named by the members 
of the AMWG and will provide advice and information to the AMWG. The 
AMWG will use this information to form recommendations to the Secretary 
of the Interior for guidance of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 
Research Center science program and other direction as requested by the 
Secretary. All meetings are open to the public; however, seating is 
limited and is available on a first come, first served basis.

DATE AND LOCATION: The TWG public meeting will be held at the following 
time and location:
    Phoenix, Arizona--Originally, the third in a series of TWG meetings 
was scheduled for December 11 and 12, 1997. However, this meeting has 
been rescheduled for December 10 and 11, 1997. This two-day meeting 
will begin at 9:30 a.m. on the first day and conclude at 4:00 p.m. on 
the second day. The meeting will be held at the LaQuinta Inn, 2510 W. 
Greenway Road, Phoenix, Arizona.
    Any organization or individual wishing to make formal oral comments 
(limited to 10 minutes) at the meetings must provide written notice to 
Mr. Bruce Moore, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 
125 South State Street, Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1102, 
telephone (801) 524-3702; faxogram (801) 524-5499; E-mail at: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c5e5153534e597c495f12494f5e4e125b534a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c1e1113130e193c091f52090f1e0e521b130a">[email protected]</span></a> at least five days prior to the meetings. Written 
comments will be provided to the TWG members at the meetings.

AGENDA: The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:

Welcome
Monitoring and Research Plans for Fiscal Year 1999
Maintenance and Beach/Habitat-Building Flows
Annual Report to Congress
Management Objectives
Resource Management Questions and Objections
Budget

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce Moore, telephone (801) 524-
3702; faxogram (801) 524-5499; E-mail at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6507080a0a17002510064b101607174b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76141b19190413360315580305140458111900">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
Stephen V. Magnussen,
Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 97-31286 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          18,386
<SECURITIES>                                     4,375
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,630
<PP&E>                                           3,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           684
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,613
<SALES>                                         35,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,202
<CGS>                                           16,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (501)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,696
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,715
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,981
<DISCONTINUED>                                     378
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,359
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
<FN>
NOTE: RECEIVABLES AND PP&E VALUES REPORTED REPRESENT NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Peter J. H. PROHASKA, Appellant, v. COLONIAL LEASING COMPANY OF NEW ENGLAND, Inc., Appellee.

No. 71-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WALTER E. RYAN, JR., §

§

Plaintiff Below, § No. 230, 2017

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

ALAN S. ARMSTRONG, JOSEPH R. § C.A. No. 12717-VCG

CLEVELAND, KATHLEEN B. §

COOPER, JOHN A. HAGG, JUANITA §

H. HINSHAW, RALPH IZZO, FRANK §

T. MACINNIS, ERIC W. §

MANDELBLATT, KEITH A. §

MEISTER, STEVEN W. NANCE, §

MURRAY D. SMITH, JANICE D. §

STONEY, and LAURA A. SUGG, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

§

and §

§

THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., §

§

Nominal Defendant Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: December 6, 2017

Decided: December 18, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, SEITZ, and

TRAYNOR, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.
2

O R D E R

This 18th day of December 2017, we affirm the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery on the basis of its opinion dated May 15, 2017.

1

 We note two issues. First, 

the appellant argues that the Court of Chancery somehow failed to consider the 

context-specific nature of his fiduciary duty claims, i.e., an argument under Unocal, 

in deciding that the appellant had not pled particularized facts supporting the 

existence of a non-exculpated claim for breach of fiduciary duty. We do not agree 

with that assertion and believe that the Court of Chancery found that the pled facts 

did not support a non-exculpated claim for breach of the defendants’ duties under 

Unocal.

Second, the appellees argued in the alternative that the appellant’s claims were 

subject to dismissal under Court of Chancery Rule 15(aaa) and Rule 41(a). We 

agree. Our Court of Chancery is busy, and the scarce resources of litigants (which 

affect the best interests of American investors) should not be wasted. The procedural 

choice made by the appellant here was not proper, and the Court of Chancery could 

have dismissed on that basis alone. Precisely because the Court of Chancery’s 

ability to handle cases promptly is so important, we note that we will support it if it 

exercises its discretion to dismiss without burdensome consideration of the merits 

 

1 Ryan v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 12717-VCG, 2017 WL 2062902 (Del. Ch. May 15, 2017).
3

when, as here, a plaintiff violates procedural rules designed to ensure that claims 

will be brought in one proceeding and at the appropriate time.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2241-2242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00412]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8587]

In the Matter of the Designation of Ansar al-Shari'a in Tunisia; 
Also Known as Al-Qayrawan Media Foundation; Also Known as Supporters of 
Islamic Law; Also Known as Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia; Also Known as 
Ansar al-Shari'ah; Also Known as Ansar al-Shari'ah in Tunisia; Also 
Known as Ansar al-Sharia; as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist 
Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23,

[[Page 2242]]

2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and 
Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the 
entity known as Ansar al-Shari'a in Tunisia, also known as Al-Qayrawan 
Media Foundation, also known as Supporters of Islamic Law, also known 
as Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, also known as Ansar al-Shari'ah, also 
known as Ansar al-Shari'ah in Tunisia, also known as Ansar al-Sharia, 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

     Dated: December 31, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-00412 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Robert C. HOUSE, Appellant, v. Eli S. JENKINS and John M. Hamilton, Appellees.

No. 71-610.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6924
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EUGENE NESBITT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-1582-WMN) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Paul M. Tiao, O FFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Eugene Nesbitt seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nesbitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
-78.0 -77.8 -77.6 -77.4 -77.2 -77.0 -76.8 -76.6
38.4 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.2 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL