alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12(a)



Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Union Pacific Railroad Company and Consolidated Subsidiary and Affiliate Companies

(Unaudited)



|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | --- | - | ---- | - | --- | -
|                                                         |  | Three Months EndedSeptember 30, |    
|Millions of Dollars, Except Ratios                       |  | 2004                            |     |   | 2003 |  
|Earnings:                                                |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Net income                                               |  | $                               | 207 |   |      | $ | 317 |  
|Equity earnings net of distributions                     |  |                                 | (21 | ) |      |   | (14 | )
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Total earnings                                           |  |                                 | 186 |   |      |   | 303 |  
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Income taxes                                             |  |                                 | 115 |   |      |   | 182 |  
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Fixed charges:                                           |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Interest expense including amortization of debt discount |  |                                 | 123 |   |      |   | 124 |  
|Portion of rentals representing an interest factor       |  |                                 | 51  |   |      |   | 40  |  
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Total fixed charges                                      |  |                                 | 174 |   |      |   | 164 |  
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Earnings available for fixed charges                     |  | $                               | 475 |   |      | $ | 649 |  
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       |  |                                 | 2.7 |   |      |   | 4.0 |  
|                                                         |  |                                 |     |   |      |   |     |
Exhibit 15



May 9, 2005



Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, Northwest

Washington, D.C. 20549

Attn: Document Control



Commissioners:



We are aware that our report dated May 3, 2005, on our review of the interim financial information of 7-Eleven, Inc. and its subsidiaries
(the Company) for the three-month period ended March 31, 2005 and included in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|                                                                             |  |                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|On Form S-8 for:                                                             |  | Registration No.      
|7-Eleven, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan                                     |  | 33-63617and 333-107574
|                                                                             | 
|7-Eleven, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees |  | 333-42731             
|                                                                             | 
|7-Eleven, Inc. Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors            |  | 333-68491             



Such report is not a
report or part of a registration statement prepared or certified by Pricewaterhouse- Coopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
independent accountants liability under Section 11 does not extend to such report.



Very truly yours,



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Dallas, Texas



Tab 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. DA 2 2

- 0 661 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. NANCY JEANNE CAHOON ,

Defendant and Appellant

.

ORDER Upon consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s Opening Brief shall be filed on or before January 2 6 , 202 4

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 10 2024

01/10/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0661
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
        Peter
        P. Smetek, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report
        of
        Larrea Biosciences Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended April
        30,
        2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
        10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
        results of operations of Larrea Biosciences Corp.
 **Larrea
                  Biosciences Corp**DATED:
                  August 7, 2007
                By:
                /s/ Peter
                  P.
                  Smetek, Jr.Peter
                    P. Smetek, Jr.
                  CEO,
                    CFO & Chairman
#### WILLIS et al. v. STATE.

No. 25971.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1952.

Henry Greenberg, Galveston, for appellant.

Raymond E. Magee, County Atty., Jack W. Callahan, Asst. County Atty., Galveston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Upon a joint trial, appellants were each assessed a term of 8 years in the penitentiary for possession of marijuana.

The sole question raised on appeal is the legality of the arrest of appellants which led to the finding of marijuana in their pockets.

It is shown, if not conceded, that the arrests were without warrant, and were not made under circumstances authorizing arrests under state law.

The state contended that the arrests, being made by patrolmen of the city of Galveston, were authorized by ordinance of that city, and it was upon this theory that the trial court admitted the testimony.

In his charge to the jury the trial court informed the jury that the city of Galveston had an ordinance set out in the charge which authorized any police officer to arrest without warrant any person found in a suspicious place or under circumstances which reasonably show that such person has been guilty of some felony or breach of the peace, or threatens, or has committed or is about to commit some offense. The jury was instructed to acquit appellants unless they found from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants were found by the officers in such a place or under such circumstances.

No objections were made to the charge.

The statement of facts, approved by counsel for the state and counsel for appellants, contains no ordinance of the city of Galveston, nor do we find any direct testimony that the place of arrest was in the city of Galveston. We are not authorized to take judicial notice of ordi*170nances of municipalities, nor may we assume that the streets patrolled by the officers were within the corporate limits.

In the absence of proof showing the arrests to have been made in the city of Galveston, it is unnecessary that we pass upon the effect of the absence of an objection to the charge.

Nor do we find it necessary to pass upon appellants’ contention that, under the facts, the arrests were not authorized by the ordinance set forth in the charge and the contention that the ordinance, if it exists, is invalid.

Upon the record the conviction must be set aside because of the want of authority of the officers to make the arrests and searches.

The judgment against each of appellants is reversed and the causes remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00176-CR

KENDRA PHILLIANA MAXION,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1398848D)

July 18, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(en banc)

(nfp)

JUDGMENT ON EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. We strike $15 of the $555 assessed as 

reparations in the judgment and modify the judgment to assess reparations of only 

$540. We modify the incorporated order to withdraw funds so that it reflects that 

$540 should be withdrawn from appellant’s inmate trust account. It is ordered that 

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
OPINION INFORMATION TO PUBLISHERS

From the Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

CASE DOCKET NUMBER: 02-18-00176-CR

NAME OF CASE: KENDRA PHILLIANA MAXION, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

DATE OPINION FILED: JULY 18, 2019

DATE REHEARING FILED:

TRIAL COURT: 297TH DISTRICT COURT

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: HON. DAVID C. HAGERMAN

COUNTY: TARRANT

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ERIC LABOVITZ & KATHRYN 

ELIZABETH MORROW

LABOVITZ LAW FIRM

ARLINGTON, TEXAS

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE: SHAREN WILSON, CRIMINAL 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY; JOSEPH W. 

SPENCE, ASSISTANT CRIMINAL 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CHIEF OF 

POST-CONVICTION; SHELBY 

WHITE & DEREK DUMAS, 

ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT 

ATTORNEYS

TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEYS OFFICE

FORT WORTH, TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0344 CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRUCE ALLEN WINCHESTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 14, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 2 2021

07/02/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0344
#### ROBINSON et al. v. PITTS.

No. 4807.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 22, 1952.

Bonham, Stanley & Campbell, Houston, Nat. H. Davis, Conroe, for appellants.

J. R. Liles, W. C. McClain, Conroe, Campbell & Foreman, Livingston, for ap-pellee.

COE, Chief Justice.

This was a suit for the reformation of a Vendor’s lien note executed by appellants, payable to the appellee. Upon a favorable jury finding, judgment was entered in favor of the appellee Pitts, reforming the Vendor’s lien note. Judgment was entered on the 29th day of September, 1951. Appellants’ motion for new trial was filed on the 25th day of October, 1951. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for the reason that appellants’ motion for new trial was not filed within the time provided for by Rule 320, which was applicable to the trial court. Rule 324 makes a motion for a new trial a prerequisite to an appeal in any case tried by a jury where no motion for judgment non obstante veredicto or a motion on the verdict of the jury was filed by appellant. Neither of such motions were filed by the appellants in this case, and under the authority of Wagner v. Walenta, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 463 and the cases therein cited, including Rule 324, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
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. RP96-389-010]

Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) the following Amendment Agreement to a recently filed negotiated rate transaction:

Amendment Agreements to ITS-2 Service Agreement No. 69314 between Columbia Gulf Transmission Company and Dynegy Marketing and Trade dated August 30, 2000, as Amended September 27, 2000.

Transportation service which was scheduled to commence September 5, 2000 and terminate September 30, 2000. The parties have executed an Amendment Agreement extending the term through October 31, 2000. All other terms and provisions remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Columbia Gulf states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission Docket No. RP96-389-010 and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26065  Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELISSA CHECKOVAGE, §

JANA HERRERA and §

NELIA MCNEAL §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00529

VS. §

§

BANDERA CENTRAL §

APPRAISAL DISTRICT §

§

Defendant. §

__________________________________ §

NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

TO: Mr. Stephan B. Rogers

Mr. Ross S. Elliott

Rogers & Moore, PLLC 

309 Water Street, Suite 201 

Boerne, TX 78006 

Email: steve@rogersmoorelaw.com

 ross@rogersmoorelaw.com 

Mr. Brian Moffatt

Moffatt Law Group

309 Water Street, Suite 201 

Boerne, TX 78006 

Email: btmoffatt@moffattlawgroup.com 

Please take notice that a verified petition for removal of the above styled and numbered 

cause from the 198th Judicial District Court of Bandera County, Texas to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division was duly filed this date, in 

the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Copies of such petition for 

removal are attached hereto. You are advised that the Defendant herein, upon the filing of the 

petition for removal and a copy of the petition with the Clerk of this Court will have affected this 

removal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1441(e).

Case 5:20-cv-00529 Document 1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 2
Melissa Checkovage, et al v. Bandera Central Appraisal District Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00529

Defendant Bandera Central Appraisal District’s Notice of Removal Page 2

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. FRIGERIO

A Professional Corporation

Riverview Towers

111 Soledad, Suite 840

San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 271-7877 

(210) 271-0602 Telefax

Email: frigeriolaw1995@sbcglobal.net 

BY: //s// Charles S. Frigerio

CHARLES S. FRIGERIO

SBN: 07477500

HECTOR X. SAENZ

SBN: 17514850

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

BANDERA CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant 

Bandera Central Appraisal District’s Notice of Removal has been electronically filed on April 

29, 2019 via filed via CM/ECF has been forwarded by electronic mail to the ECF Participant:

Mr. Stephan B. Rogers 

Mr. Ross S. Elliott 

Rogers & Moore, PLLC 

309 Water Street, Suite 201 

Boerne, TX 78006 

Email: steve@rogersmoorelaw.com

 ross@rogersmoorelaw.com 

Mr. Brian Moffatt 

Moffatt Law Group 

309 Water Street, Suite 201 

Boerne, TX 78006 

Email: btmoffatt@moffattlawgroup.com 

//s// Charles S. Frigerio

CHARLES S. FRIGERIO

Case 5:20-cv-00529 Document 1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 2
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. RP00-584-000]

Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) filed with the Commission its annual fuel adjustment filing pursuant to Section 24.1(a) of the General Terms and Conditions of MRT's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1. Requesting an effective date of November 1, 2000, MRT filed the following tariff sheets:

Thirty Sixth Revised Sheet No. 5

Thirty Sixth Revised Sheet No. 6

Thirty Third Revised Sheet No. 7

Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 8

MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to adjust the Fuel Use and Loss Percentages under its Rate Schedules FTS, SCT, ITS, FSS and ISS.

MRT further states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of MRT's customers and to the state commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. 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. 00-25843  Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Third Court ofAppeals /receivedN MAR 02 2015 THIRD COURTOF APPEALS \ JEFFREYD. KYLE / RECEIPT FOR CHECK-OUT RECORD (CLOSED CASES) 

### This is to acknowledge that 1have takenreceipt ofthe following itemsof this record. Iunderstand that I am fully responsible for the care and custody of these items. These items will be returned no later than the due date shown below. These items were received by me in goodcondition, properly bound and certified by the appropriate Clerkor Court Reporter if applicable.

Cause Number: 03-12-00760-CV Retention Center No.: 

### Name ofCause: Winnebago Industries, Inc v TX Dept ofMotor Vehicles Items Checked out: 1 box of administrative record

Date Items Checked Out: Requested By: Attorney: Dennis McKinney Signature: Firm/Agency: AG, Administrative Law Division Address: P.O. Box 12548 Phone Number: 5 12-475-4020 Date Items are due: PERMANENT

Driver Lie.:

***************************************************************** Appro ved By: Jeff Ky 1e

*********************************************************************************************************** Dates Items Returned: PERMANENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00456-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MARKMAN MARKMAN HEARING HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

MARKMAN HEARING by zoomoom on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 09:00 AM.

reset

IT 23rd day of March, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 59 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4872 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain non-toric shaped polarized 

materials of 80 mm or less in diameter. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. CAMPBELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain non-toric shaped 

polarized materials of 80 mm or less in diameter. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NON-TORIC SHAPED POLARIZED MATERIALS 

4 OF MORE THAN 80 MM IN DIAMETER. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4872 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Polarized lenses, lens 

blanks, wafers, sheets or 

plates consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and 

polycarbonate to be used in 

the production of lenses for 

sunglasses, not toricshaped, with an outer profile diameter of 80 mm or 

less (provided for in subheadings 9001.20.00, 

9001.50.00, or 

9001.90.90) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS