alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                          CILCORP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed
                      Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                    Oct. 19         Jan. 1
                                            As Restated(1)             to             to
                                           -----------------        Dec. 31,       Oct. 18,
                              2002         2001         2000       1999(1)(2)     1999(1)(2)        1998

                                                          (In thousands)
<S>                         <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>            <C>          <C>
Earnings, as Defined:
  Net Income from
    Continuing
    Operations              $ 24,658     $ 25,428     $ 11,385      $   (532)      $    687     $ 38,218
  Income Taxes                 6,841       22,182       10,380          (951)         1,113       19,699
  Interest                    66,073       69,784       71,752        14,339         22,629       29,257
  COLI Interest Expense        5,334        4,926        4,300           850          3,181        3,624
  Interest Portion of
    Rentals                    1,619          979        1,603           116          1,808        1,903
  Preferred Dividends          2,159        2,159        2,977           558          2,650        3,194
                            --------     --------     --------      --------       --------     --------
      Total Earnings,
        As Defined          $106,684     $125,458     $102,397      $ 14,380       $ 32,068     $ 95,895
                            ========     ========     ========      ========       ========     ========
Fixed Charges, as
  Defined:
  Interest Expense          $ 66,073     $ 69,784     $ 71,752      $ 14,339       $ 22,629     $ 29,257
  Interest Expense
    on COLI                    5,334        4,926        4,300           850          3,181        3,624
  Interest Portion of
    Rentals                    1,619          979        1,603           116          1,808        1,903
  Tax Effected
    Preferred
    Dividends                  3,579        3,579        4,935           925          4,393        5,294
                            --------     --------     --------      --------       --------     --------
      Total Fixed
        Charges, as
        Defined             $ 76,605     $ 79,268     $ 82,590      $ 16,230       $ 32,011     $ 40,078
                            ========     ========     ========      ========       ========     ========
Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                  1.4          1.6          1.2           0.9            1.0          2.4
                            ========     ========     ========      ========       ========     ========
</Table>

(1) See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

(2) The AES Corporation purchased CILCORP Inc. and subsidiaries on October 18,
    1999.
*The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1242

___________

Walter R. Olinghouse, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Dave Dormire; Jeremiah (Jay) W. *

Nixon, Attorney General of the State of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Missouri, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 16, 1999

Filed: September 22, 1999

___________

Before BEAM and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter R. Olinghouse appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Olinghouse first contends he is entitled to habeas

relief because the state trial court denied his motion to inform the jury of the parole

consequences of a capital murder conviction when, as in Olinghouse’s case, the

maximum possible sentence was life imprisonment. Olinghouse’s argument is meritless
-2-

because a defendant who is not subject to the death penalty has no constitutional right

to inform the jury of the parole consequences of his conviction. We also reject

Olinghouse’s second contention that the state trial court improperly admitted evidence

of his confession to law enforcement officers because, contrary to Olinghouse’s view,

the confession was obtained by constitutional means.

We thus affirm the denial of Olinghouse’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
July 13, 1998

20996

#### State v. Welling

Affirmed
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0483 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-NM-082-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: CF-2011-36R1

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply12359Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Mary Tevington (not verified)PermalinkMarch 26, 2023 - 3:48pm

              In reply to Is my memory failing, or do... by Thomas Neale (not verified)I remember this in the late ‘70’s.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED
                                  STATES CODE)

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of the registrant certifies, to the best of his or her
knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report, fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Dated: November 9, 2004                  /s/ Kenneth I. Moch
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Kenneth I. Moch
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         (principal executive officer)

Dated: November 9, 2004                  /s/ Elizabeth A. O'Dell
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Elizabeth A. O'Dell
                                         Vice President, Finance
                                         Secretary and Treasurer
                                         (principal financial officer)

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW164926]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Wildfire Partners, Inc., for competitive oil and gas lease WYW164926 for lands in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 307-775-6176. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $159 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW164926 effective February 1, 2012, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The BLM has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the lands.                

Julie L. Weaver,

Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 2013-00323 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

CORRECTED ORDER

Appellate case name: Browserweb Media Agency, Mark Burke v. Maxus Energy 

Corporation

Appellate case number: 01-14-01028-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-63727

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Appellee Maxus Energy Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss filed April 14, 2015 is 

DENIED. 

Appellant filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss on April 15, 2015 in which he 

requests an additional 30 days to file his brief. The motion is GRANTED, with no further 

extensions. Appellant’s brief is due May 9, 2015.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 16, 2015
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply498Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  sarah.davisPermalinkOctober 13, 2017 - 9:18amHi Ann, these two female figures represent Liberty and Victory/Fame.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
03/-/5*

ELECTRONIC RECORD

CCA# 09-14-00112-CR

STYLE: Ex Parte David Lee Victo

TRIAL COURT: 435th Disti

TRIAL COURT #: 13-11-123;

rick

'ict Court

>3CR

ael Seiler

OFFENSE: Habeas Corpus

PUNISHMENT:

COUNTY: Montgomery

MOTION

FOR REHEARING IS:

TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Judge Mich; DATE:

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED JUDGE:

DATE: 12-10-14

JUSTICE: LeanneJohnson PC NO S YES

PUBLISH: YES

CLK RECORD: 03-20-14

RPT RECORD: 03-18-14

STATE BR: 05-30-14

DNP: NO

SUPP CLK RECORD: 12-12-13 from 09-13-551-CR

SUPP RPT RECORD: 12-13-13 from 09-13-551-CR

SUPP BR:

APP BR: 04-14-14 PROSE BR:

03/-/r

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD CCA# PD-0031-15

APPELLANTS Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

RZPUSeD ,

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

DATE: 03 llV/zO/JT

JUDGE: fM CUAyufiA_

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

CCA IS: ON

JUDGE:

ON

JUDGE:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-69,315-03

IN RE BRANDON CROCKER, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 241-0571-20-B IN THE 241 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

Smith County and his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the District Clerk of Smith County, shall forward Relator’s habeas application

to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habeas application in Smith County, or forward a

copy of an order designating issues together with correspondence documenting the date the State

received Relator’s habeas application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); TEX.

R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this

order within thirty days from the date of this order.
2

Filed: October 5, 2022

Do not publish
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8334]

In the Matter of the Designation of the Moroccan Islamic 
Combatant Group aka Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM) and All 
Associated Aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to 
Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis 
for the designation of Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group as foreign 
terrorist organization have changed in such a manner as to warrant 
revocation of the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the Moroccan 
Islamic Combatant Group as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant 
to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 
U.S.C. 1189), shall be revoked.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 13, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-12611 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
* This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 7, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JOEL SERRANO-SANTOS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-4021 (D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00786-CW-1) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Defendant Joel Angel Serrano-Santos entered a guilty plea to one count of being an alien who has re-entered the United States illegally after having been deported. His plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. The district court determined that the applicable sentencing guideline range was 46 to 57 months and sentenced defendant to 46 months, at the low end of the range. Despite his appeal waiver, defendant has now filed an appeal-2- seeking to challenge his sentence. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in defendant’s plea agreement pursuant to our decision in United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. In determining whether an appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id . at 1325. Defendant “does not dispute that his appeal was knowingly and voluntarily entered”; he concedes that his “appeal appears to fall within the terms of the appeal waiver agreed to as part of [his] plea agreement”; and, he admits that “the record in this case does not disclose any reasonable basis for finding that enforcement of the plea waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Resp. to Mot. to Enforce at 1 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, defendant has not established any of the applicable exceptions to the enforcement of his appeal waiver. We therefore GRANT the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant’s plea agreement and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
July 31, 2008

28298

#### Hughes v. State

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 32.4
  SECTION 1350
    CERTIFICATION OF
    AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
    (required by Section 906 of the
    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  Form 10-K Form 10-K),
  (1)
    The
    Form 10-K
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
    or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the
    Form 10-K
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Date: March 1,
    2007