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

EXHIBIT 12

                   GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARY
        Statement of the Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                                               Three Months Ended
                                                                      March 31, 1999
                                                                    ------------------

<S>                                                                  <C>             
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                                  $          170.1
  Add - Income taxes                                                            116.5
      - Fixed charges                                                            37.1
                                                                     ----------------
Adjusted earnings                                                    $          323.7
                                                                     ================

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                   $           36.2
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                                   0.9
                                                                     ----------------

Adjusted fixed charges                                               $           37.1
                                                                     ================


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                               8.73
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Appellate case name: In re DM Works, L.L.C., Relator

Appellate case number: 01-16-00757-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-47447

Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris County

On November 10, 2016, this Court’s Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss for 

Want of Jurisdiction, among other things, ordered relator to have a motion to substitute 

and notice of appearance be filed by a licensed attorney within 10 days of that Order, and 

ordered Gerald Hopkins, relator’s current counsel who was disqualified by the trial court, 

file a motion to withdraw with this Court within 10 days of any motion to substitute. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(d). This Court’s Order further ordered relator’s new counsel to file a 

supplemental appendix complying with this Court’s October 13, 2016 Order, within 10 

days of that November 10, 2016 Order, or else this Court may dismiss this mandamus 

petition for want of prosecution without further notice. See id. 42.3(b), (c).

On November 18, 2016, Gerald Hopkins filed a motion to withdraw as relator’s 

counsel in this Court. On November 21, 2016, new counsel Stephen Cochell filed a 

notice of appearance on behalf of relator in this Court, noting that Hopkins had recently 

informed Cochell of his intent to file his motion to withdraw. Accordingly, because 

Hopkins already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in this Court, the Court construes 

Cochell’s notice of appearance to include a motion to substitute, and GRANTS the 

motions to substitute and withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(d). Withdrawing counsel 

Hopkins is ordered to comply with his notification duties and file a copy of that notice 

with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of this Order. See id. 6.5(c). The Clerk of 

this Court is directed to remove Gerald Hopkins as counsel for relator and to substitute 

Stephen Cochell as lead counsel for relator.
Also on November 21, 2016, on behalf of relator, Stephen Cochell filed a motion 

for a temporary stay of this Court’s disposition of any pending motions for a period of ten 

days to allow Cochell time to evaluate the matter and confer with his client regarding the 

need for proceeding with this mandamus petition. On November 22, 2016, counsel for 

real party in interest, Dimensional Machine Works, L.L.C. (“RPI Dimensional”), filed a 

response in opposition to relator’s motion for temporary stay contending, among other 

things, that a stay is unnecessary because there are no pending motions before this Court.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the relator’s motion to stay, construed as a stay 

of this Court’s disposition of RPI Dimensional’s motion to dismiss, filed in this Court on 

November 7, 2016, which remains pending, and of relator’s requirement to file a 

supplemental appendix, for ten days from the date of this Order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually 

 

Date: November 29, 2016
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31978L0583

**Ninth Council Directive 78/583/EEC of 26 June 1978 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes***Official Journal L 194 , 19/07/1978 P. 0016 - 0016 Finnish special edition: Chapter 9 Volume 1 P. 0071  Greek special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0096  Swedish special edition: Chapter 9 Volume 1 P. 0071  Spanish special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0102  Portuguese special edition Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0102*

NINTH COUNCIL DIRECTIVE  of 26 June 1978  on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes  (78/583/EEC)

  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 99 and 100 thereof, 

 Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

 Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1), 

 Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2), 

 Whereas Article 1 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of assessment (3) lays down 1 January 1978 as the latest date for the implementation of its provisions in Member States; 

 Whereas Directive 77/388/EEC lays down common provisions for all fields covered by value added tax ; whereas, in many cases, it is incumbent upon the Member States to determine the conditions under which these provisions shall apply ; whereas, since the scope of Directive 77/388/EEC is so wide as to encompass a very large number of national regulations, several Member States have been unable to carry out the necessary adaptions in time to comply with Directive 77/388/EEC ; whereas these Member States have thus been unable to complete the legislative procedure necessary to adapt their legislation on value added tax within the time limit laid down; 

 Whereas the Member States concerned have requested an extension of the time limit for the entry into force of Directive 77/388/EEC ; whereas in this context an extension for a maximum of 12 months should be sufficient, 

 HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

   Article 1

 By way of derogation from Article 1 of Directive 77/388/EEC, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are hereby authorized to implement the said Directive by 1 January 1979 at the latest. 

 Article 2

 This Directive is addressed to Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

   Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 1978. 

 For the Council 

 The President 

 K.B. ANDERSEN  (1)OJ No C 163, 10.7.1978, p. 68. (2)Opinion delivered on 20/21 June 1978 (not yet published in the Official Journal). (3)OJ No L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

LEONARD GEORDLEY ANGLADE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 894 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41171

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAYNA ALEXA VELASQUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-266-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Dayna Alexa Velasquez

raises an argument that she concedes is foreclosed by United States v. 

Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge 

of drug type and quantity is not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense. The 

unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED.

 * 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41171 Document: 00513079574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
EXHIBIT 11
  
  
                          GTE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
  
  
                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31     
                                                           1997         1996
                                                             (In Thousands)
  
  Consolidated net income                                $665,347     $616,278
  
  Adjustments to consolidated net income:
  Add - Interest expense, net of tax effect, on
          employees' stock plan                              -             235
  
  Adjusted consolidated net income                       $665,347     $616,513
  
  
  Average common shares                                   960,434      974,646
  
  Adjustments to common shares:
  Add - Employees' stock and stock option plans             1,692        2,691
  
  Adjusted average common shares                          962,126      977,337
  
  EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:
  
  Primary  (1)                                           $    .69     $    .63
  
  Fully diluted  (2)                                     $    .69     $    .63
  
  
               
  (1)   Computed by dividing consolidated net income for the periods by the
        average common shares outstanding.  Common stock equivalents are
        excluded from this computation since they do not have a 3% dilutive
        effect.
  
  (2)   Computed assuming the exercise of those stock plans and options that
        would have a dilutive effect.
  
        (a)  Equivalent common shares to be added to average shares for the
             employees' stock plan, stock ownership plan and stock options
             are computed according to "treasury stock" method.
  
        (b)  Consolidated net income for the periods is adjusted to reflect
             the increase in income for the interest accrued, net of tax
             effect, on funds received from installments under the employees'
             stock plan.
EXHIBIT 21



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND THEIR COUNTRY OR STATE OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION



|                                                   |  |                    
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|Asystum Participations, BV                         |  | The Netherlands    
|Datastream FSC, Inc.                               |  | U.S. Virgin Islands
|Datastream Servicios Mexicanos, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico             
|Datastream Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.            |  | China              
|Datastream Systems (UK), Ltd.                      |  | The United Kingdom 
|Datastream Systems de Argentina S.A.               |  | Argentina          
|Datastream Systems de Chile SRL                    |  | Chile              
|Datastream Systems de Mexico S.A. de C.V.          |  | Mexico             
|Datastream Systems do Brasil Ltda.                 |  | Brazil             
|Datastream Systems International, Inc.             |  | Delaware           
|Datastream Systems Kabushiki Kaisha.               |  | Japan              
|Datastream Systems Latinamerica SRL                |  | Uruguay            
|Datastream Systems Pte Ltd.                        |  | Singapore          
|Datastream Systems Pty Ltd.                        |  | Australia          
|Datastream Systems Sdn Bhd                         |  | Malaysia           
|Datastream Systems, BV                             |  | The Netherlands    
|Datastream Systems, GmbH & Co.                     |  | Germany            
|Datastream, SA                                     |  | France             
|iProcure, Inc.                                     |  | Delaware           
|Perville, SA                                       |  | Uruguay            
|Sikasso Pte Ltd.                                   |  | Singapore          
|SQL Group, B.V.                                    |  | The Netherlands    
|SQL System Participaties, BV                       |  | Germany            
|Strategic Business Management Sdn Bhd              |  | Brunei             



- 1 -
# L_2013224EN.01S00301.xml

| 22.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 224/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 224/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
# Official Journal C 90/14 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 90 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4814 April 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 90

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4814 April 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 090/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 090/2 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 090/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3751 — Novartis/Hexal) (1) | 8 |
| | EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2005/C 090/4 | Notification from the Norwegian Government concerning certain tax reductions for the paper and pulp industry — EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to raise objections against the notified measures | 9 |
| 2005/C 090/5 | 48th amendment of the State aid guidelines — EFTA Surveillance Authority decision to propose appropriate measures | 10 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 090/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 090/2

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (1)

2

2005/C 090/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3751 — Novartis/Hexal) (1)

8

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2005/C 090/4

Notification from the Norwegian Government concerning certain tax reductions for the paper and pulp industry — EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to raise objections against the notified measures

9

2005/C 090/5

48th amendment of the State aid guidelines — EFTA Surveillance Authority decision to propose appropriate measures

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         153,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,414,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                   178,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,906,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,325,300
<PP&E>                                       6,899,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,475,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,060,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,160,000
<BONDS>                                      9,778,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,759,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,919,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,060,400
<SALES>                                      3,490,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,490,000
<CGS>                                        2,484,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,484,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               835,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        


</TABLE>
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00148 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ THELMA DORIS FERRY , A ppellant ,
v. DALE JAMES FERRY , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Lon goria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Thelma Doris Ferry, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge in cause no. 2013

- FAM

- 4013

- G pending in the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable order. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps2

could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dism issed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response generally asserting that the order at issue is final and appealable. Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments unless a statute permits an interlocutory appeal. Ogletree v. Matthews , 262 S.W.3d 316, 319

n. 1 (Tex. 2007). An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from a final judgment. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 18a(j)(1)(A). An order denying a motion to disqualify is in terlocutory. Dickson v. Dickson , 516 S.W.2d 28, 31 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Austin 1974, no writ). Such an ord er “may be reviewed by mandamus and may be appealed in accordance with other law.” T EX

. R. C IV

. P

. 18A(J)(2). Because there is no “other law” permittin g the interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify in a case such as this, the denial of the motion to disqualify may also be reviewed only upon appeal from final judgment. Here, the Court finds no basis for interlocutory appellat e juri sdiction over this appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See id. 42.3( a ),(c). All pending motions are likewise DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed t he 9th day of June 2016

.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.6

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                    OF FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC.
                        UNDER SECTION 805 OF THE BUSINESS
                               CORPORATION LAW OF
                              THE STATE OF NEW YORK

     The undersigned, being the President and the Secretary, respectively, of
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., hereby certify that:

     1.   The name of the corporation is FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC.
          (THE "CORPORATION"). The Corporation was formed under the name W. R.
          Grace & Co.-New York, subsequently renamed W. R. Grace & Co., then
          renamed Fresenius National Medical Care Holdings, Inc., and then
          renamed Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.

     2.   The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the
          Department of State on March 23, 1988.

     3.   This Certificate of Amendment has been duly authorized, pursuant to
          Section 803 of the Business Corporation Law of the State of New York,
          by a vote of at least a majority of the members of the Board of
          Directors of the Corporation, followed by the vote of the holders of a
          majority of all outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon at a
          meeting of shareholders duly called for such purpose.

     4.   The Certificate of Incorporation is amended by adding Article NINTH in
          order to permit action to be taken by written consent of shareholders
          without a meeting. The Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended
          by the insertion of Article NINTH to read as follows:

          NINTH: Whenever under the Business Corporation Law of the State of New
     York, shareholders are required or permitted to take any action by vote,
     such action may be taken without a meeting on written consent signed by
     holders of outstanding shares having not less then the minimum number of
     votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting
     at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this Certificate of Amendment on this
6th day of July, 2001, and we affirm the statements contained herein as true
under penalties of perjury.

                                      FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC.

                                      /s/ Ben Lipps
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Ben J. Lipps
                                      Title: President


                                      /s/ Ronald J. Kuerbitz
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Ronald J. Kuerbitz
                                      Title: Secretary