alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12


            American General Finance Corporation and Subsidiaries
              Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges




                                        Years Ended December 31,
                             2000       1999      1998      1997       1996
                                          (dollars in thousands)
Earnings:
  Income before provision
    for income taxes       $  408,803  $352,751  $306,228  $216,113  $ 79,633
  Interest expense
    (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund
    assets held for sale)     677,372   563,966   501,533   474,135   482,343
  Implicit interest in
    rents                      16,310    15,641    12,026    13,615    14,620

Total earnings             $1,102,485  $932,358  $819,787  $703,863  $576,596


Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense
    (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund
    assets held for sale)  $  677,372  $563,966  $501,533  $474,135  $482,343
  Implicit interest in
    rents                      16,310    15,641    12,026    13,615    14,620

Total fixed charges        $  693,682  $579,607  $513,559  $487,750  $496,963


Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                  1.59      1.61      1.60      1.44      1.16
#### Frank Delgado DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Inez GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-48.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 15, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                 THOMAS W. FIFE


       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Thomas W. Fife,
hereby constitutes and appoints Laurence C. Leslie or Peter A. Allen his true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-K of Data Dimensions, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, and any
amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the
Form 10-K, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Nasdaq National
Market System, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and
authority to do and perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about
the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and
agent, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


        Dated this 22nd day of March, 2001.


Signature:



/s/ THOMAS W. FIFE
------------------------------
Thomas W. Fife
Circuit Court for Allegany County IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Case No. 01-K-11-014262

No. 9 September Term, 2014

STATE OF MARYLAND

v.
MITCHELL GASTON REID

Barbera, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts, JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: May 15, 2014STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE * COURT OF APPEALS
v. * OF MARYLAND * No. 9 MITCHELL GASTON REID * September Term, 2014



### PER CURIAM ORDER The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case, it is this 15 day of May, 2014 th ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated and the case is remanded to that Court for further consideration in light of Nalls v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 54, September Term, 2013 filed April 23, 2014); Melvin v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 95, September Term, 2013 filed April 23, 2014); Szwed v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 61, September Term, 2013 filed April 23, 2014); and Morgan v. State, ____ Md. ____, ____ A.3d ____ (No. 71, September Term, 2013 filed April 23, 2014). Costs in this Court to be paid by the Respondent, and costs in the Court of Special Appeals to abide the result.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
#### Charles C. HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Defendant in Reconvention-Appellant, v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Defendant-Plaintiff in Reconvention-Appellee.

No. 4454.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 12, 1974.

Hebert & Levingston by David L. Lev-ingston, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Plauché, Smith & Hebert by Allen L. Smith, Jr., Lake Charles, for defendant-ap-pellee.

Before FRUGÉ, DOMENGEAUX, and WATSON, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

Appellant, Charles C. Hamilton, neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the January 30, 1974, call of this case for argument. The appeal is considered abandoned and dismissed pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2162; Rule VII, Section 5(b), Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Vol. 8, LSA-R. S., page 392.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Charles Irvin STANSEL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent.

NO. 72-707.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 21, 1972.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Criminal Court of Record, Orange County.

Dismissal denied and case transferred to Circuit Court, Orange County.
Order entered July 26, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00120-CV

BRUCE DWAIN COPELAND, Appellant

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL., Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-15575

ORDER

The reporter’s record is past due and the court reporter has notified the Court 

that appellant has not requested the reporter’s record. By letter dated June 25, 

2021, we instructed appellant to file, within ten days, notice that he has requested 

preparation of the reporter’s record and written verification that he has paid or 

made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee. We cautioned appellant that failure 

to comply may result in an order that the appeal be submitted without the 

reporter’s record. As of today’s date, appellant has not responded. Accordingly, 
we ORDER the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(c).

Appellant shall file his brief on the merits within thirty days of the date of 

this order.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleasesEconomic CensusMiscellaneous

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB12-TPS.50**
**Contact:**  Public Information Office301-763-3030

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, AUG. 6, 2012

## Infographic on America's Economy is Fourth in "How Do We Know?" Series 

As America prepares for the 2012 Economic Census, the U.S. Census Bureau has created an embeddable infographic displaying many of the ways we track the economic health of the country. The graphic cites facts dealing with manufacturing, services, retail trade, construction, government and much more as seen through the numerous economic programs and surveys conducted by the  Census Bureau. Many of these economic statistics will be available on a new mobile app being released later this week. Other "How Do We Know?" infographics include information on the Census Bureau's history of data collection, our nation's veterans and the American Community Survey. The "How Do We Know?" series can be found at <https://www.census.gov/how/>.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 7, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1190

Lower Tribunal No. F15

- 22330B

________________



### Ricky Canot

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lody Jean , Judge.

Ricky Canot , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and MILLER , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB09-CN.38 **Contact:**  Stacy Gimbel
Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, DEC. 8, 2009 Media Advisory — Census Bureau Director to Provide Update on Status of 2010 Census Operations Members of the media may also participate by telephone. (Please dial-in early to allow time for the operator to place you in the call.) Dial-in number: 800-619-4415
   Passcode: 2010 CENSUS Please RSVP by 5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 11 to the Public Information Office at 301-763-3691.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Third Quarter 2006 and 2007
          (in percent)



                                     Third      Third         90-Percent
Area                                quarter    quarter  Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)a
                                     2006       2007    of 2007 rate of difference

United States.....................      69.0       68.2        0.5         0.4

  Inside Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas............      67.6       66.8        1.3         0.5
    In principal cities...........      54.6       53.5        1.0         0.5
    Not in principal cities
    (suburbs).....................      76.2       75.7        1.2         0.5
  Outside Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas.............      75.8       75.2        2.6         0.7

 Northeast........................      65.5       65.2        0.9         0.8
 Midwest..........................      72.8       71.9        1.0         0.7
 South............................      70.6       70.1        0.9         0.6
 West.............................      65.3       63.5        1.2         0.8


aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the 
confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
Note:  Metropolitan Statistical Area data for 2005 and later are not comparable to earlier data.  
Beginning in  first quarter 2005, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey is using the 
new metropolitan and micropolitan definitions that were announced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
in June 2003, and were based on the application of the 2000 standards to Census 2000 data.  OMB announced 
updates as of December 2003, based on application of the 2000 standards to more recent Census Bureau estimates.  
In this report, outside Metropolitan Statistical Areas includes micropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical areas.  
The December 2003 definitions are available at:  
http//www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html and http:/www/census.gov/population/estimates/about metro.html.
# C_2013155EN.01000201.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 May 2013

2013/C 155/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3006 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4557 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85365 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5828 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2406 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6140 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,711 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 296,11 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7018 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2792 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3843 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4456 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3540 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3434 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0981 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6265 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6412 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 470,85 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2174 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9789 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5500 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 742,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0267 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,031 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,4400 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,480 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7664 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7688 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,4980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3006

JPY

Japanese yen

130,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4557

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85365

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5828

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2406

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6140

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,711

HUF

Hungarian forint

296,11

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7018

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2792

RON

Romanian leu

4,3843

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4456

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3540

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3434

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0981

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6265

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6412

KRW

South Korean won

1 470,85

ZAR

South African rand

13,2174

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9789

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5500

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 742,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0267

PHP

Philippine peso

55,031

RUB

Russian rouble

41,4400

THB

Thai baht

39,480

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7664

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7688

INR

Indian rupee

73,4980

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
NO. 03-14-00531-CR

DERRICK KUYKENDALL * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appellant *

VS. * OF THE THIRD

* SUPREME JUDICIAL

* DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS *

Appellee * AT AUSTIN TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLATE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Appellant, and files this Motion for an Extension in which to

file the Appellant’s Brief. In support of this motion, appellant shows the Court the

following:

I.

The Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Travis County, Texas of

the offense of Manslaughter. After a probation revocation hearing, Appellant was

assessed 15 years TDCJ. 

II.

The deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief is September 8, 2015 and

Appellant has requested two previous extensions.

III.

ACCEPTED

03-14-00531-CR

6937091

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/15/2015 3:38:39 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/15/2015 3:38:39 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Attorney for the Appellant would further show the Court that he has been

diligent in preparing Appellee’s brief in this case. Due to a very busy docket counsel

is unable to complete the brief within the time frame. Counsel requests an extension

of time so that he may adequately prepare Appellant’s Brief. Counsel must complete

his investigation of the record and draft the brief. 

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays the Court grant this Motion and extend the

deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief to October 19, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted,

ARIEL PAYAN

Attorney at Law

1012 Rio Grande

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 478-3900

(512) 472-4102 (fax)

Arielpayan@hotmail.com

 /s/ Ariel Payan 

ARIEL PAYAN

State Bar No. 00794430

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature above, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

above and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief has been

delivered to the Criminal District Attorney of said County Texas, on September 15,

2015.
# C_2012175EN.01001001.xml

| 19.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6555 — Posco/MC/MCHC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 175/03

On 11 June 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6555. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6555. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Joseph Dugan et al., Plaintiffs, v Dorff Construction Company, Inc., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.) Sacks *159and Sacks, Esq., Nonparty Appellant; Bert Taras, P. C., Nonparty Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 53]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about October 7, 1999, granting the motion of respondent law firm Bert Taras, P. C. (the Taras firm), for an order directing appellant law firm Sacks and Sacks to turn over, pursuant to a fee-sharing agreement between the two law firms, two thirds of the fee received or to be received in this personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the case remanded for calculation of the Taras firm’s fee based upon the pro rata share of the work performed by it in the litigation.

In the unique situation presented, where Sacks and Sacks originally handled the underlying personal injury action, the Taras firm was retained and then discharged (within a month) after having performed minimal preliminary work on the case, and the case was transferred back to Sacks and Sacks, we find that the Taras firm is precluded from recovering two thirds of Sacks and Sacks’ fee as provided in the fee splitting arrangement. The agreement granting the Taras firm two thirds of the fee was executed when this firm took over the case, and it clearly contemplated that the Taras firm would try the case to completion, not that the litigation would be returned to Sacks and Sacks after less than a month. Because this Court has the inherent power to ensure that a fee charged by a firm be commensurate with the reasonable services rendered to a client *(cf,*Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106 [22 NYCRR 1200.11]), we limit the Taras firm to a pro rata recovery of the value of the work it actually performed. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
# C_2013071EN.01000101.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/1

---

2013/C 71/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 63, 2.3.2013

OJ C 63, 2.3.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 55, 23.2.2013

OJ C 46, 16.2.2013

OJ C 38, 9.2.2013

OJ C 32, 2.2.2013

OJ C 26, 26.1.2013

OJ C 9, 12.1.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
* 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

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50947

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO LOPEZ-HUERTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-445-ALL-PRM

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Alfonso Lopez-Huerta appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Lopez-Huerta contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Lopez-Huerta maintains that he
No. 03-50947

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Lopez-Huerta acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.