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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12
                                       
                              AMOCO CORPORATION
                         ______________________
                                       
               STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF
                          EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                     (millions of dollars, except ratios)

                                                                      
                             Six                                      
                            Months                                    
                            Ended            Year Ended December 31,
                           June 30,  
                             1998      1997     1996    1995    1994    1993
Determination of Income:                                              
Consolidated earnings                                                 
 before income taxes                                                  
 and minority interest...    $  932  $3,771   $3,965  $2,404  $2,491  $2,506
Fixed charges expensed by                                             
 consolidated companies..       242     452      412     406     316     350
Adjustments for certain                                               
 companies accounted for                                              
  by the equity method...        59      66       69      25       7      11
Adjusted earnings plus                                                
 fixed charges...........    $1,233  $4,289   $4,446  $2,835  $2,814  $2,867
                                                                      
Determination of Fixed Charges:                                       
Consolidated interest on                                              
 indebtedness (including                                              
 interest capitalized)...    $  193  $  363   $  317  $  317  $  288  $  299
Consolidated rental                                                   
 expense representative                                               
 of an interest factor...        49     102      107      89      23      50
Adjustments for certain                                               
 companies accounted for                                              
 by the equity method....        34       7        8       6       5       8
Total fixed charges......    $  276  $  472   $  432  $  412  $  316  $  357
                                                                      
Ratio of earnings to                                                  
 fixed charges...........       4.5     9.1     10.3     6.9     8.9     8.0
6:20-cv-00350

Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 4 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 5 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 6 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 7 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 8 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 9 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 10 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 11 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 12 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 13 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 14 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 15 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 16 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00350-ADA Document 1-3 Filed 04/30/20 Page 17 of 17
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. MG00-1-002]

Take notice that Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. submitted revised standards of conduct on September 7, 2000 in response to the Commission's June 2, 2000 Order on Standards of Conduct, 91 FERC ¶ 61,240 (2000).

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a  motion to intervene or protest in this proceeding with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 oR 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before October 13, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25407  Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SOUTHWESTERN
BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY'S JUNE 30, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                  67
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                            61
<INVENTORY>                                              0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     2,491
<PP&E>                                              33,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                      20,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      16,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                5,176
<BONDS>                                              4,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                           3,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        16,113
<SALES>                                                  0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     5,578
<CGS>                                                    0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,450
<INCOME-TAX>                                           534
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    916
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           916
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
<FN>
<F1> THIS AMOUNT IS IMMATERIAL.
<F2> NET SALES OF  TANGIBLE  PRODUCTS  IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL  OPERATING
     REVENUES AND  THEREFORE  HAS NOT BEEN STATED  SEPARATELY  IN THE FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS  PURSUANT  TO  REGULATION  S-X,  RULE  5-03(B).  THIS AMOUNT IS
     INCLUDED IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3> COST OF TANGIBLE  GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICES  AND PRODUCTS
     IN  THE  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND  THE  "TOTAL-COST"  TAG,  PURSUANT  TO
     REGULATION S-X,RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### MERRELL v. STATE.

No. 25399.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

There being no statement of facts or bills of exception in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                      
|Kansas Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                      
|Kansas Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 2      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.A

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2002, of Southern Natural Gas Company (the "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John W. Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive
Officer), certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




                                             /s/ John W. Somerhalder II
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             John W. Somerhalder II
                                             Chairman of the Board
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)

                                             November 13, 2002
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4753 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Acid Yellow 151. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Acid Yellow 

151. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ACID YELLOW 151. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4753 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Acid Yellow 151 (Bis[2- 

[[5-(aminosulfonyl)-2- 

hydroxyphenyl]azo]-3-oxoN-phenylbutyramidato(2-)] 

cobaltate(1-) sodium; 3- 

Hydroxy-2-(2-hydroxy-5- 

sulfamoylphenylazo) 

isocrotonanilide cobalt(III) 

chelates sodium salt) (CAS 

No. 72496–88–9) (provided for in subheading 

3204.12.45) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                                         
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Montana Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### LYTLE v. McALPIN.

No. 12165.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 15, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1950.

*218Alfred M. Scott, Austin, (on appeal only), and Palmer & Lemons, San Antonio, for appellant.

Kleberg, Mobley, Lockett & Weil and Edmond J. Ford, Jr., all of Corpus Christi, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

Upon the former appeal of this case, reported in Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 216, this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court which awarded McAlpin a judgment of $524.52 against J. W. Lytle. The nature of the case is fully set out in the former opinion. McAlpin’s theory of recovery was that Lytle had secured the services of one E. M. Carey in remodeling his residence and had authorized Carey to employ McAlpin to do certain work in connection therewith.

We held that under the evidence it could not be reasonably inferred “that Carey became the agent of Lytle and Lytle became directly responsible to McAlpin who furnished labor and materials for the job at the instance of Carey.”

Upon remand of the case McAlpin filed an amended petition in which it was alleged that if Carey had no real authority as agent of Lytle to pledge Lytle’s credit to McAlpin, then that Lytle, after learning that McAlpin was performing his subcontract in reliance upon Lytle’s credit, had ratified Carey’s acts in so pledging Lytle’s credit to McAlpin. McAlpin further alleged that if neither the agency theory nor the ratification theory would stand up, then he was entitled to recovery on the theory of quantum meruit.

Judgment was again rendered for Mc-Alpin and Lytle has appealed.

After reading the statement of facts, we have come to the conclusion that, as a matter of law, there is no evidence supporting the alternative theories of recovery set forth in McAlpin’s amended petition. The same is true of the theory of actual agency, discussed in our former opinion. In view of the fact that we have heretofore written at length in this case, further discussion is deemed unnecessary. The present record is similar to that presented upon the former appeal. We believe the present judgment, as a matter of law, lacks support in the evidence and for that reason the same is reversed and judgment here rendered that McAlpin take nothing against Lytle.

POPE, J., did not participate in the disposition of this cause.
ALD

- 059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16

- 3865

___________

IN RE: MICHAEL NORWOOD,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

U nited States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1

- 15

- cv

- 02996)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 1, 2016

Before: MCKEE, JORDAN and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 11, 2017 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

Michael Norwood filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order

directing the District Court to rule on his amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The

District Court denied th at motion on November 28, 2016. Thus, because Norwood has

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2 received all of the relief he requested, his petition is now moot. We will therefore

dismiss it. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. LEAH N. TORRES,

Plaintiff

v.

THE WESTERN JOURNAL, LLC,

LIFTABLE MEDIA, INC., AND THE 

DAILY CALLER, INC.,

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 1-20-MC-269-RP

(underlying Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-BSJ)

O R D E R

Before the Court is Petitioners Upland Software, Inc. and PostUp Digital, LLC’s Motion to 

Quash, filed March 13, 2020 (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion. On 

March 26, 2020, the District Court referred the motion to the undersigned for resolution pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“Local Rules”).

On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Dr. Leah N. Torres filed suit in the United States District Court 

for the District of Utah, alleging that Defendants The Western Journal, LLC, Liftable Media, Inc.,

and The Daily Caller, Inc. (“Defendants”) are liable for defamation, false light, invasion of privacy, 

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference for their publication of certain 

statements concerning Plaintiff. See Torres v. Western Journal, 2:19-cv-00175-BSJ (D. Utah 

Mar. 13, 2019). 

During the jurisdictional discovery period, Plaintiff issued two subpoenas to third-party 

Petitioners Upland Software, Inc. and PostUp Digital, LLC (“Petitioners”) requesting certain 

information on an email platform they may have provided to the Defendants. Petitioners filed their
2

Motion to Quash pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3), arguing that the subpoenas 

should be quashed because jurisdictional discovery ended on March 13, 2020. 

As noted above, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Petitioners’ Motion. Pursuant to Local 

Rule CV-7(e)(2), if no response is filed within the time period prescribed by the rules, the court 

may grant the motion as unopposed. See id. (stating that responses to non-dispositive motions are 

due within 7 days after the filing of the motion). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the District’s 

Motion to Quash (Dkt. No. 1) as unopposed pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(e)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that the Clerk remove this case from the Magistrate 

Court’s docket and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Robert Pitman. 

SIGNED on March 30, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE