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


Exhibit 12

                    GTE NORTHWEST 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                       $          54.5
  Add - Income taxes                                                 31.9
      - Fixed charges                                                15.0
                                                          ---------------
Adjusted earnings                                         $         101.4
                                                          ===============

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                        $          14.6
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                       0.4
                                                          ---------------
Adjusted fixed charges                                    $          15.0
                                                          ===============

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                   6.76
</TABLE>
# C_2021368EN.01001802.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v IY, TP

(Case C-11/21) (1)

(2021/C 368/28)

Language of the case: German.

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
#### James DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1973.

James Dixon, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Jessie Calvin COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. J-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Jan. 18, 1968.

Douglas Andrews, Asst. Public Defender, and James E, Moore, Merritt Island, for appellant.

*39Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

Original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus denied on authority of Sanders v. State, 184 So.2d 686 (Fla.App. 1st 1966), holding that application for bail pending appeal shall be made to the trial court in accordance with the provisions of Florida Appellate Rule 6.15, 31 Florida Statutes Annotated.

Denied.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM KALAN GOLD
CORPORATION UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE
RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,959
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,350,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,810,176
<PP&E>                                       1,683,926
<DEPRECIATION>                                 490,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,098,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,315,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           950
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,177,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,098,203
<SALES>                                      1,782,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,782,749
<CGS>                                           14,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,139,196
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,497
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,110,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,110,699
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,672,535
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,512,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    293,128
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,633,982
<PP&E>                                      23,308,631
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,592,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,359,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,700,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,407
<COMMON>                                     2,687,211
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,581,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,359,141
<SALES>                                     16,077,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,265,745
<CGS>                                       13,111,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,742,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,523,073
<INCOME-TAX>                                    97,120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,425,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,425,953
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
#### John Will BRIM, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So.2d 446.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### FLORIDA GAS COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ARKLA AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY, a Division of Arkla Industries, Inc., a corporation, Appellee.

No. O-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 30, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1972.

*221Raymond Ehrlich, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Thomas M. Baumer, of Mahoney, Had-low, Chambers & Adams, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Florida Gas Company, appeals from a final order dismissing its third amended third party complaint upon the grounds that same failed to state a cause of action.

Lockwood Marks, Inc. instituted this action against Florida Gas, alleging breach of contract in the design and installation of an air conditioning system in an apartment complex. Particular allegations by Lockwood are: the system continuously broke down; improper design; expansion couplings not installed; faulty thermostat; chiller units defective; and breaks in hose connections. An additional count alleging negligence on the part of Florida Gas is set out in the complaint.

Florida Gas sought to join Arkla Air Conditioning Company, the manufacturer of the air conditioning units, as a third party defendant by generally alleging that it had manufactured the equipment complained of and had assisted in the design of the system. No specific duty on the part of Arkla to Florida Gas is alleged. At most, it might be theorized that Florida Gas is seeking to recover from Arkla upon the doctrine of implied warranty. A cause of action for a third party complaint has not been stated.

The second point posed by Florida Gas is that the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting it one more opportunity to state a cause of action. “Three strikes are out” in a baseball game; Florida Gas has been at bat four times. Under the most liberal construction of our modern rules, we hold that ample opportunity has been proffered to appellant.

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### Sarah COSTANZA v. Martha K. BARKER.

No. 8551.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1971.

*256Gordon Goodbee, Covington, for appellant.

Garic K. Barranger, of Barranger, Bar-ranger & Jones, Covington, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is an action ex delicto resulting from a rear end collision on the black top road in Abita Springs, Louisiana. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant has appealed.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Sarah Costanza testified that on April 17, 1969, as she was proceeding to her house and prior to making a left turn into her driveway, she stopped, momentarily, on the highway because some men were on the side of the road with car trouble. She had not as of yet signaled for a left turn when the defendant collided with the rear of her automobile. At the time it was drizzling raining. Without question, the lights of the plaintiff’s car were on.

The defendant testified that the plaintiff’s automobile lights were not on until right before the accident. Apparently the Trial Judge believed the plaintiff because of his judgment.

It is well settled jurisprudence in this State that:

> “ * * * when visibility is materially impaired because of smoke, mist, dust, fog or other atmospheric conditions, a motorist is held to a duty of operating his vehicle with an unusually high degree of care. He should reduce his rate of speed to such an extent and keep his car under such control as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of accident from collision, and as an extreme measure of safety it is his duty, when visibility ahead is not possible or is greatly obscured, to stop his car and remain at a standstill until conditions warrant going forward. He does not have a right to assume that his course of travel is free from danger or obstruction in the absence of his ability to see clearly ahead, but if he continues to travel as if he knew there was perfect clearance ahead, he does so at his own risk and peril.” See Ardoin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., La.App., 133 So.2d 129, and Standard Casualty Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y., La.App., 162 So.2d 26, 31 (1964).

A motorist is required to maintain a constant lookout, steadily watching road conditions ahead, keeping his vehicle under such control, and maintaining such speed as is commensurate with the attending circumstances. Standard Casualty Co. v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of N. Y., supra.

The plaintiff presented an estimate of damages to her automobile totaling $352.99. Testimony was further gained from the plaintiff which amounted to her receiving a minor whiplash in the accident. The Trial Judge awarded the plaintiff a total of $702.99. We find no error on the part of the Trial Court on either liability or quantum.

Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JESSE JAMES FINLEY, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Mc,ntana 

ORDER 

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 16(5), the parties in this matter have stipulated and move 

for an order remanding this proceeding to the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake 

County. The parties agree that under the facts of this case, Appellant Jesse James Finley 

should be entitled to a sentence reduction of 1,293 days of elapsed time and 431 days of 

credit for time served, for a total of 1,724 days. The parties ask this Court to remand this 

proceeding to the District Court with instructions to amend its judgment accordingly. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Twentieth Judicial District 

Court for entry of an amended judgment and sentence. The court is directed to grant 

Defendant Jesse James Finley a sentence reduction of 1,293 days of elapsed time and 431 

days of credit for time served, for a total of 1,724 days. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record, to the 

Clerk of Court for Lake County, and to the Honorable James A. Manley, presiding District 

Judge. 

Dated this I b day of May, 2022. 

Chief Justice 
e-*" . 

10: 

e 

Justices 

2
#### Michael MAGUIRE, Appellant, v. Colleen MAGUIRE, Appellee.

No. 71-1099.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John H. Moore, II, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### THE STATE *vs.*JOHN ALLEN.

Retailers’ licenses ; when to be taken out. Certificates to he always filed in May.

General Sessions, New Castle,

November Term, 1836.

Indictment for retailing goods without license : contrary to statute. *Dig.*462-4. Plea, not guilty. .

The indictment charged the offence from the 1st June, to 27th July, 1835. The defendant produced two licenses, one dated 1st June, 1834, but issued 10th September, 1834; the other dated 1st June, 1835, issued 27th July, 1835.

*Rogers,*attorney general,

contended that all licenses were to bear date on the 1st of June; and expired at that time, whenever taken out. The clerk of the peace proved that it was the practice to date all licenses on 1st June.

*Rogers,*attorney general, for the prosecution.

*Rodney,*for defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The original law contemplates two classes of retailers ; those who were such at the passing of the law, and those who should commence afterwards. For the former it fixed the 1st of June for the taking out licenses, and the licenses of all such must continue to bear date from the 1st of June annually, whenever in fact taken out. For persons who commenced retailing after the 1st of June, the law could not have intended to make their licenses date back from'that time, and it is only obligatory on such to lake license when they commence, and annually thereafter. The supplement has thrown some confusion over the construction by requiring certificates to be filed on the 1st of May. This is obligatory on all retailers ; and their licenses, whenever taken out, must be regulated by this certificate.

Defendant acquitted.
Aflhf p ,Q/ '/J -yft) ^ ayw

. 1STCOURT OF APPEALS 

# P.if/eJ^^- f^<#i° MfrS,s< M^CTu
/MlQiZ

### iMf-^ &£fetfh^//itMfcyJ Ate rfcj&/'d$2&& diSM CS50? '6 dtfrsxi, fat Afag jFdTw&z/icTto^) j -ifey

*&+""Sai^r- HOu APR^g3W 2015 'HEr pRlNE ^ ^ ^ "Si u ^ £ & >& oq
EXHIBIT 12.2



CALIFORNIA STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY



Computation of Ratio of EBITDA, to Interest Expense, Net



|                                       |  |      |        |      |   |         |  |   |        |   |      |   |         |  |   |        
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ------ | ---- | - | ------- |  | - | ------ | - | ---- | - | ------- |  | - | -------
|                                       |  | 2003 |        | 2002 |   | 2001    |  |   | 2000   |   | 1999
|Net income (loss)                      |  | $    | 4,544  |      | $ | 35,001  |  | $ | (3,711 | ) |      | $ | 34,845  |  | $ | 46,847 
|Income taxes                           |  |      | 2,271  |      |   | 23,138  |  |   | (3,606 | ) |      |   | 21,293  |  |   | 30,180 
|Interest Expense, net                  |  |      | 13,120 |      |   | 14,127  |  |   | 16,316 |   |      |   | 18,756  |  |   | 16,345 
|Depreciation & amortization            |  |      | 28,660 |      |   | 28,827  |  |   | 30,204 |   |      |   | 28,852  |  |   | 26,331 
|                                       |  |      |        |      |   |         |  |   |        |   |      |   |         |  |   |        
|EBITDA                                 |  |      | 48,595 |      |   | 101,093 |  |   | 39,203 |   |      |   | 103,746 |  |   | 119,703
|                                       |  |      |        |      |   |         |  |   |        |   |      |   |         |  |   |        
|Interest expense, net                  |  |      | 13,120 |      |   | 14,127  |  |   | 16,316 |   |      |   | 18,756  |  |   | 16,345 
|Ratio EBITDA, to interest expense, net |  |      | 3.7x   |      |   | 7.2x    |  |   | 2.4x   |   |      |   | 5.5x    |  |   | 7.3x
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited statements but
include all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair
presentation of results for this period.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                     63,700
<SECURITIES>                                4,400
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,580,100
<ALLOWANCES>                               41,000
<INVENTORY>                             1,245,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,205,300
<PP&E>                                  3,461,100
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,686,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          6,641,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,902,200
<BONDS>                                   681,800
<COMMON>                                  561,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                95,800
<OTHER-SE>                              2,384,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            6,641,400
<SALES>                                 5,225,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,225,900
<CGS>                                   1,890,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,890,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        2,197,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         41,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,092,900
<INCOME-TAX>                              396,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       696,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              696,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                1.52
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 581 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 581

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 7, 1994.
    Resolved, That any organizational caucus or conference in the House of 
Representatives for the One Hundred Fourth Congress may begin on or after 
November 27, 1994.
    Sec. 2. As used in this resolution, the term ``organizational caucus or 
conference'' means a party caucus or conference authorized to be called under 
section 202(a) of House Resolution 988, Ninety-third Congress, agreed to on 
October 8, 1974, and enacted into permanent law by chapter III of title I of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1975 (2 U.S.C. 29a(a)).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```