alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



Exhibit 12

GTE North Incorporated and Subsidiary

STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Three Months
                                                                   Ended
                                                                 March 31,
                                                                   1998
                                                               ------------
<S>                                                            <C>         
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income before extraordinary charge                           $    160,963
  Add - Income taxes                                                 97,448
        - Fixed charges                                              34,365
                                                               ------------

Adjusted earnings                                              $    292,776
                                                               ============

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                             $     32,517
  Portion of rent expense
      representing interest                                           1,848
                                                               ------------

Adjusted fixed charges                                         $     34,365
                                                               ============

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                     8.52
</TABLE>
Exhibit
      23.3 - Consent of Ryder Scott





RYDER
                SCOTT COMPANY
            
            FAX
                (713)
                651-0849PETROLEUM
                CONSULTANTS1100
                LOUISlANA
            SUITE
                3800
            HOUSTON,
                TEXAS 77002-5218
            TELEPHONE
                (713) 651-9191








CONSENT
      OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.





We
      hereby
      consent : (i) the use in the Form 10-K of Hyperdynamics Corporation, a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 under the Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, of
      information contained in our reserve report letter relating to the reserves
      and
      revenue, as of June 30, 2006,
      of
      certain interests held by HYD resources Corporation, a subsidiary of the
      Company; (ii) all references to such reserve report letter and/or to this firm
      in the Form 10-K; (iii) our being named as an expert in the Form
      10-K.





/s/
                Ryder Scott Company, L.P.RYDER
                SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.





Houston,
      Texas


October
      12, 2006









1200.
                53C - 8TH AVENUE, S.W.
            CALGARY,
                ALBERTA T2P 358
            TEL
                (403) 262-2799
            FAX
                (403) 262-2790621
                17TH STREET, SUITE 1550
            DENVER,
                COLORADO 80293-1501
            TEL
                (303) 623-9147
            FAX(303)623-4258
# Official Journal C 92/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.092.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 92 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5221 April 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.092.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 92

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5221 April 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Council |
| 2009/C 092/01 | Convention on centralised customs clearance concerning the allocation of national collection costs retained when traditional own resources are made available to the EU budget | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Council

2009/C 092/01

Convention on centralised customs clearance concerning the allocation of national collection costs retained when traditional own resources are made available to the EU budget

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Susan Pollack, Appellant, v Marvin Pollack, Respondent. Lisa Siano, Nonparty Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 632]

—In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated December 8, 2000, as granted the motion of the former guardian ad litem for the defendant, among other things, for an attorney’s fee to the extent of referring for a hearing the issues of whether the guardian ad litem is entitled to recover fees from the plaintiff and, if so, to determine the extent and value of the services rendered.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The doctrine of law of the case “is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” *(Martin v City of Cohoes,*37 NY2d 162, 165). The order referring for a hearing the issues of whether the former guardian ad litem for the defendant is entitled to recover an attorney’s fee from the plaintiff, and the extent and value of the services rendered by the guardian ad litem, was not barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. The issues decisive in the motion were not litigated and decided in a prior order dated February 21, 1997, in this action.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### SARAH ANN MORRIS, an Infant, &c., by her Guardian *vs.*WILLIAM HAZZARD.

Suit for a distributive share of an estate is a personal demand ; yet “ outstanding lia. bilities of the estate,” may be pleaded, under the statute; or refunding security may be required by the court.

The suit was by the only child and heir-at-law of Constantine Morris, against the administrator of his estate, for a distributive share. It was in special assumpsit, under the provisions of *Code,*806, the declaration averring the appointment of defendant as administrator, the rendering of accounts, distributive balance, assets in hand, &c., and counting on the consequent promise to pay. These averments were proved.

The defendant, who appeared in person, objected that he was sued pérsonally and not as administrator, and was thereby precluded from *452pleading outstanding debts due from the estate; and he applied for a. nonsuit on this ground ;• but, ' -

*Saulsbury,*for plaintiff.

. *The Court*

said the suit was properly brought against the defendant personally; as, upon proof of assets, it became his debt. The *Code*provides that “ an action of assumpsit may be maintained against an executor or administrator for a legacy or distributive *share;*and assets in his hands to pay a legacy shall create a legal liability, and raise, a consequent promise to pay it. There shall be a legal liability to pay a distributive share, and consequent implied promise.” The facts stated in the declaration showing his appointment as administrator, his accounting, &c., are only inducement showing the foundation of the assumpsit. The verdict and judgment in a suit against him as administrator, would be a judgment against the estate; but the liability is a personal one. It is true that this produces an apparent difficulty in pleading outstanding liabilities, to which the assets are applicable, as such a plea would be more applicable to a demand against the estate, but the court apprehends it would be a good plea in this suit, as showing that there are assets applicable to the plaintiff’s claim. And additionally the *Code*provides a further remedy, by authorizing the court to “ exercise equitable powers, in requiring a plaintiff to give security to *refund.”*

*Mr. Hazzard*then moved to amend by pleading outstanding debts, which the court refused, as the plea had been already put in, demurred to, and withdrawn; and the case had proceeded so far 'in the trial; but, after verdict, on his motion, supported by affidavit setting out certain judgments that had been recovered against him, they required the plaintiff to give security to refund.

Verdict for plaintiff, $665 10.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0082

CITY OF BILLINGS,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KATRINA LYNN HOFMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 27, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 20 2020

04/20/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0082
#### In re George Lyndell STANFILL et ux., Mover-Appellee, Opposition by Diana Evans Waters, Opponent-Appellant.

No. 13404.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Gahagan & Gahagan by Marvin F. Gaha-gan, Natchitoches, for opponent-appellant.

Simmons & Derr by Kermit M. Simmons, Winnfield, for mover-appellee.

Before BOLIN, PRICE, HALL, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment granting an interlocutory decree of adoption was signed on June 10, 1977. A motion for devolutive appeal was filed and an order signed June 17, 1977. The appeal bond was filed August 8, 1977, which *was not*timely. LSA-R.S. 9:438. Appellant was notified of a probable lack of jurisdiction and responded to our order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed but the response failed to establish that the appeal bond was timely filed.

At appellant’s cost, the appeal is DISMISSED.
----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming

(2005/C 71/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming (COM(2004) 415 final) and its annex the Commission Staff Working Paper European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming (SEC(2004) 739);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 5 July 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its President of 27 January 2004 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) and the amendments hereto;

Having regard to the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2004) 490 final - 2004/0161(CNS));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (COM(2002) 394 final) – CdR 188/2002 fin (2);

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Directions towards sustainable agriculture (COM(1999) 22 final) - CdR 183/99 fin (3);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 251/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 20 September 2004 by its Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Jyrki Myllyvirta, Mayor of Mikkeli (FI/EPP)),

Whereas:

Unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 57th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 November 2004 in Brussels (meeting of 17 November):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Market mechanisms

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

International trade considerations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Community agricultural policy

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Research

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Enforcement and inspection

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Brussels, 17 November 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p.1

(2)OJ C 73, 26.3.2003, p.25

(3)OJ C 156, 6.6.2000, p.40

----
258 La. 912

#### MID-CITY INVESTMENT CO., Inc. v. Sam BATISTE (Kroger Company, Inc., Garnishee).

No. 51405.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 24, 1971.

In re: Mid-City Investment Co., Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 248 So.2d 88.

Not considered; it does not appear that applicant has applied to the Court of Appeal for a rehearing pursuant to Ct.App. rule 11 § 5. See Const. Art. VII, Sec. 11.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6789

CHRISTOPHER LEONARD HAMLIN, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00446-MHL) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 21, 2006 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam. Christopher Leonard Hamlin, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Leonard Hamlin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. *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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-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 Hamlin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hamlin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
#### MOLNAR *v.*WARDEN OF MARYAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 45,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided February 6, 1963.*

Before the full Court.

Per Curiam.

Application for leave to appeal from a denial of post conviction relief is denied for the reasons set out in the opinion of the court below.
#### Edward George ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED
STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report
of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 10, 2009 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |     |  |                           
|-------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|April 10, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Donald H. Walker      
|               |  |     |  | Donald H. Walker          
|               |  |     |  | Vice President-Finance and
|               |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer   

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          32,105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  830,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,760
<INVENTORY>                                     44,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,018,100
<PP&E>                                       9,250,266
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,311,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,710,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,302,111
<BONDS>                                      1,530,946
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           16,937
<PREFERRED>                                     29,033
<COMMON>                                       978,351
<OTHER-SE>                                     245,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,710,814
<SALES>                                        741,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               741,649
<CGS>                                          212,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  429,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,078
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                283,375
<INCOME-TAX>                                   105,376
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            177,999
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   177,999
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 147

In the House of Representatives, U. S.

April 1, 1993.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

1430) to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt

limit. All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived. Debate on the bill shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit.

SEC. 2. Upon its passage by the House, H.R. 1430 shall

be considered to constitute reconciliation legislation pursuant

to section 7(a) of the conference report to accompany the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) setting forth the con-
2

HRES 147 EH

gressional budget for the United States Government for the

fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### In the matter of a return of a *private*road on the petition of GEORGE HICKMAN.

The act authorizing the laying out of private roads is constitutional.

Exceptions filed by James Rowland.

*Mr. Layton*

objected to the confirmation of the return, on the ground that section ten of the act of assembly concerning roads and bridges, authorizing the laying out of private roads is unconstitutional. *(Art.*8, sec. 1, *Const. Del.;*5 *Art. Const. U. S. Amendmts.)*
      *581Private property is sacred under our constitutions from being taken for any other than public use. (3 *Story’s Com.*661, § 1784; 2 *Dall. Rep.*304-7-10; 3 *Ibid*386, *Calder*vs. *Bull;*1 *Harr. Rep.*77, 82; 1 *Baldw. C. C. Rep.*219; 1 *Rev. Stat.*N. *York*517, § 77; 13 *Wend. Rep.*328; 4 *Hill’s Rep.*76, 140; 2 *Kent Com.*13, 340; 11 *Wend. Rep.*149; 18 *Ibid*59; 19 *Ibid*659; 5 *Paige’s Rep.*137.)

*Mr. Cullen*

declined replying.

*The Court*

overruled the exceptions and confirmed the return.

The authority to lay out private as well as public roads has been exercised under laws similar to the present from the beginning, without question. It is within the legislative control in exercise of eminent domain of which it is a part. The land is taken for public use, though upon private petition. It is a part of the system of public roads; essential to the enjoyment of those which are strictly public; for many neighborhoods as well as individuals would be deprived of the benefit of the public highway, but for outlets laid out on private petition, and at private cost, and which are private roads in that sense, but branches of the public roads and open to the public for the purposes for which they were laid out. Just compensation is made to the owner"óf the land for individual damage, and the public resumes the occupation and use of it so far as. is necessary for the common good, by virtue of aright paramount to that of individual property.
#### Everett L. ALMON v. H. F. SANDLIN.

SC 2616.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1978.

J. Wilfred Tucker, Cullman, for appellant.

Bruce A. Burttram and A. Dozier Williams, Birmingham, for appellee.

SHORES, Justice.

The issues in this case are identical to those raised in *Almon v. Sandlin (Ms.),*353 So.2d 1159, this day decided. The judgment appealed from is affirmed under the authority contained in that opinion.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.