alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 12

                         ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED               SIX MONTHS ENDED
($ IN THOUSANDS)                           JUNE 30,                       JUNE 30,
----------------                           --------                       --------
                                    2001            2000            2001            2000
                                    ----            ----            ----            ----
<S>                               <C>              <C>            <C>              <C>
Income (loss) from
  continuing operations           $ (3,173)        $17,749        $(40,529)        $23,039
Income tax benefit                       0           3,310          16,880               0
                                  --------         -------        --------         -------
Earnings (loss) before
  income tax benefit (A)            (3,173)         14,439         (57,409)         23,039
Fixed charges:
  Interest                          26,119          21,559          50,395          41,738
  One-third of all rentals             536             467             805             896
  Preferred stock dividend
    of subsidiary trust              2,248           2,248           4,495           4,495
                                  --------         -------        --------         -------
  Total fixed charges               28,903          24,274          55,695          47,129
                                  --------         -------        --------         -------
Earnings (loss) before
  income tax benefit and
  fixed charges                   $ 25,730         $38,713        $ (1,714)        $70,168
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges (B)                 N/M(C)           1.59x          N/M(C)           1.49x
</TABLE>

(A)      Earnings before income taxes in the six months ended June 30, 2001
         include $41.8 million of unusual charges. Unusual charges include
         severance, outplacement and other compensation costs associated with
         restructuring our corporate functions commensurate with the ongoing
         businesses as well as expenses associated with exited businesses and
         asset impairments.

(B)      For purposes of computing these ratios, "earnings" represent income
         from continuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges.
         "Fixed charges" consist of interest expense, one-third (the portion
         deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
         operating leases, and preferred stock dividends of subsidiary trust.

(C)      The ratio calculated in the three and six months ending June 30, 2001
         is less than 1.00 and therefore, not meaningful. In order to achieve a
         ratio of 1.00, earnings before income taxes and fixed charges would
         need to increase by $3,173 for the three months ended June 30, 2001 and
         $57,409 for the six months ended June 30, 2001.


                                       41
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2300

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jack Eugene Knight lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________ Submitted: January 18, 2021 Filed: January 22, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jack Knight appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal employee. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw,

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
#### FORD v. STATE.

No. 26119.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is on a plea of guilty before the court for the offense of selling beer in a dry area, the punishment being a fine of $150.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
(BIOGEN LOGO)

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

DATE:    August 28, 2002

TO:      Craig Eric Schneier, Ph.D.

cc:      James C. Mullen
         Peter N. Kellogg
         Personnel File

FROM:    Frank A. Burke, Jr.

SUBJECT: Reimbursement for Mortgage Interest

This memorandum will serve to evidence the agreement of Biogen to pay to you an
amount sufficient to reimburse you for the additional interest expense you will
incur as a result of the inability of Biogen to fund a mortgage loan to you.

When you accepted employment with Biogen, the company committed to lending you
$250,000 for up to five years without interest - to assist you in the
acquisition of a new residence in Massachusetts. The loan was to be secured by a
mortgage on the new residence. A copy of the proposed promissory note is
attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A. Subsequent to when Biogen committed to
making the loan, but prior to funding it, a federal law was enacted barring a
publicly traded company from lending funds to its executive officers. Biogen is
a publicly traded company and you are an executive officer of Biogen; therefore,
Biogen cannot lend you funds as previously committed to you.

To afford you the economic value of the now proscribed loan, Biogen and you have
agreed to pay to you an amount equivalent to the additional interest expense you
will incur financing the acquisition of your new residence in Massachusetts in
the absence of the loan from Biogen. Based on the difference between terms of
the proposed promissory note and your actual financing, your mortgage lender,
Chase Mortgage, has calculated that you will pay $1,323.00 in additional
interest each month (see worksheet attached to this memorandum as Exhibit B).
Biogen will pay to you this amount each month beginning August 15, 2002.
Reimbursement of the additional interest expense by Biogen will cease at such
time as you would have been obligated to repay in full the loan in accordance
with the terms of the proposed promissory note.

Biogen's reimbursement of the additional interest expense will constitute income
paid to you and will be subject to federal and state income and welfare taxes.
You will be responsible for the payment of all such taxes. If you refinance the
bank loan used to acquire your new residence in Massachusetts and, therefore,
your actual interest expense per month is reduced, Biogen's payments to you will
be equitably reduced.

/bk
Attachments
#### KEENAM v. STATE.

No. 21866.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 21, 1942.

Williamson & Nordyke, of Stephen-ville, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of an aggravated assault, and fined the sum of $25.

There is no statement of facts in the record.

We do find in the record what is denominated an “exception” to the form of the complaint “because the same does not set forth in plain and intelligible words any *74offense attempted to be charged.” The exception goes no further in setting forth the objectionable features of such complaint. We also find a further bill of exceptions, to the complaint “because it does not appear on the face of same that an offense against the law of this State was committed by the defendant.”

We have carefully examined the complaint herein, and we think same is not subject to the objections leveled thereat by appellant. The pleading is in three counts, all based on forms 502 and 503, p. 303, Willson’s Texas Criminal Forms, Fifth Edition, and such forms were evidently before the pleader in making such allegations. We hold the complaint to be sufficient to charge the offense of an aggravated assault.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7572

ARTHUR F. PIGGOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM B. DORSEY; BAXTER BELL, Doctor,

Jail Doctor, Williamsburg-James City County

Jail; JAMES PAULK, Classification Officer,

Williamsburg-James City County Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-713-CV-2)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur F. Piggott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order overruling

Appellant's objections to payment of a partial filing fee and

granting him an additional thirty days to raise the required fee.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and

dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan 

Nurses 

Association 

An Affiliate of Nationa l Nurse s United 

Headquarters 

2310 Jolly Oak Road 

Okemos. Ml 48864 

/./„w.-517.349.5640 

/m-.- 517.349.5818 

\iyb- www.minurses.org 

Marquette 

220 W. Washington Street, Suite 100 

Marquette, Ml 49855 

phone: 906.225.7053 

j,n-.- 906.226.2701 

\^XJ 'J_; 

"0 

O'l 

?^So 

Fcbnian'6'h, 2012 

Docket Maiiagenieiit Facilit)' 

U.S. Department of Trnnsportation 

1200 New Jersey A\eiuic SB 

West BuilJing, GrounJ I'^loor, Ilooiii \V12-I40 

Wasliington. DC.205';() ^_.. . . ^ 

Rcf: Sun Countn-- Slot Exemption - Docker Number FAA-2012-00S9 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Sun Couiitn' Airlii\es ITAS reijuesied an e.\emptJon from the slot limit for Ronuld Reiigan Washington National 

Aiqiort (DCA) scr torili in 93.123(n), to permit the F.-\A to create air carrier slots during certain limited hours 

lor Sun Countr\'"s use. The proposed air carrier slots would replace two sloe exemptions iiiulcr D<3T Order 

2t)IO-12-16 awarded to Sun (Joiintrv. (I)n |nnLi-.ir\' 6'^. 2(H2, the United States C'jiirt ot Ap[ieals tor the 

District of Colunibia'Circnit vacated the DO'l' Order, and Sun CountA' will lose its existing scr\'ice berwcen 

DC'A and Lansing's'(Capital Region InternatioiialAirport. Specificallv, Sun Country desires one dailv slot 

during each of the K.'OO and 1100 hours. The proposed exempdon would permit Sun Countr\' to condnuc 

opcradng its existing sen'ices and n\'oid an ine<.]uitable result of the Court's order. 

It is cducal that Sun CotiiiUT be allowed to condnue their daily serx'ice between W'ashington. D d and 

r..ansing,;Michigan. As we work hard to rebuild ami reinvest in Michigan, the abilirv to travel back and forth 

berv.vcen the Great Lakes state and the nafi(jirs capital is crucial to our conunued economic growth and 

success. The Mjchigan t>Jurses .Association has taken advantage (.)f the Sun Countn,' Highis (o Washinglon on 

more than one occasion anti having that flight available has plaved a key role in helping us achie\'e our goals. 

JFhe Sun Countr\_P.(JA senice is essendal to the^"'conoimc gro\vtli of the Circaler Lansing llegion. l~lie dailv,^ 

sen-ice is the only large aircraft (737-800) service to \Vflshingt(.in Reagan Airport, in the state of Michigan 

outside of Detroit. Prior to Sun Countn . the regional community had rei:]uested the introduction of this 

ser\'ice t'njiii numerous other airline opei-ators wi(h<>ui success. Acc<:)rdiiiglv, ii is critical that the FAA take 

the necessar\' steps to ensure the continuation of the.Sun Countrv slots at the established flight times ui 

support of Greater Lansing's business and ecoiK.iniic gr«.)wth. 

Your immediate approval of this exemption, so that Sun Country' can begin to enter flights schedules t(.)r sale 

for the balance of 2012. will-be greadv appreciated. .. . . • , . : , 

Sincerely, 

" 1 i • I. 

John Karcbiaii, Executive,Director .
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3174 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3174

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2013

                                Received

                           December 20, 2013

  Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 
                                 Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to obligate funds for 
emergency relief projects arising from damage caused by severe weather 
                events in 2013, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EMERGENCY RELIEF PROJECTS.

    The Secretary of Transportation may obligate any funds made 
available to implement section 125 of title 23, United States Code, for 
emergency relief projects arising from damage caused by severe weather 
events in 2013, without any limitation on obligations for such projects 
resulting from a single natural disaster or a single catastrophic 
failure in a State.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3114 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3114

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in 
  the income threshold used in determining the deduction for medical 
                                 care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2013

  Mr. Barber introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in 
  the income threshold used in determining the deduction for medical 
                                 care.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Families and Seniors Save on 
Health Care Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN INCOME THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING MEDICAL 
              CARE DEDUCTION.

    Section 9013 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and 
the amendments made by such section) are hereby repealed, and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and administered as if 
such section (and amendments) had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
#### ALLEN v. BREWSTER.

No. 8156.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1944.

*312Kennemer & Armstrong and Blakley & Armstrong, all of Dallas, for appellant.

J. W. Randall, of Dallas, amicus curiae.

Coke & Coke and Thos. G. Murnane, all of Dallas, for appellee.

SHARP, Justice.

This suit involves the validity of a certificate issued by the Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, in which certificate Patsy Allen was designated beneficiary. It was contended in the trial court that Patsy Allen should be denied the right to collect the proceeds of such certificate, because. she did not have an insurable interest in the life of Henry A. Brewster, the insured and a member of the Society. The trial court sustained this contention and instructed a verdict against Patsy Allen, and judgment was rendered against her, denying her the right to collect the proceeds of such certificate. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 172 S.W.2d 192. We refer to the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals for a more detailed statement of the case. This Court granted a writ of error on the application of Patsy Allen.

In the recent case of Castillo v. Canales, 174 S.W.2d 251, this Court held contrary to the holding of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals in this case, and declared that the law governing fraternal benefit societies authorizes a member of such a society, with the society’s consent, as evidenced by its law, to name in a benefit certificate whomsoever such member pleases to designate as beneficiary, regardless of whether the beneficiary has an insurable interest in such member’s life. In that case the laws relating to this question are fully discussed, and we refer to such opinion for a full discussion of the reasons for the holding of this Court in that case. The decision in that case controls this case, and the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that Patsy Allen was not entitled to recover under the certificate. Therefore the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals are hereby reversed, and judgment is here rendered in favor of Patsy Allen for the proceeds of the certificate.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                        Special Emphasis Panel in Computer-Communications Research (1192).                    

*Date/Time:*                        March 2 and 3, 2000; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                        National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                        Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Dr. Yechezkel Zalcstein, Program Director, Theory of Computing Program, CISE/C-CR, Room 1145, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1914.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                        to provide advice and recommendations for the Theory of Computing Program (TOC) by providing review of approximately 60 proposals with special attention to changing emphasis for that program.                    

*Agenda:*                        Review and evaluate TOC proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                        The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-2738 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
                         -------------------------------


          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 of Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby
certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of their knowledge:

          1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

          2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.



                                          By:  /s/  Harold K. Fletcher
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                    Harold K. Fletcher
                                                    Chairman and President

                                               /s/  Joseph P. Macaluso
                                               --------------------------------
                                                    Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                    Principal Accounting Officer

February 13, 2007



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and will be retained by
Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.