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

                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      For the Period November 3, 1998 to December 25, 1998
                                      ----------------------------------------------------
                                      Merrill Lynch Preferred      Merrill Lynch Preferred
                                          Capital Trust V              Funding V, L.P.
                                      -----------------------      -----------------------

<S>                                         <C>                          <C>        
Earnings                                    $10,100,818                  $11,828,542
                                            ===========                  ===========
                                                                      
Fixed charges                               $        --                  $        --
                                                                      
Preferred securities distribution                                     
  requirements                                9,797,667                   10,100,818
                                            -----------                  -----------
                                                                      
Total combined fixed charges and                                      
  preferred securities distributions        $ 9,797,667                  $10,100,818
                                            ===========                  ===========
                                                                      
Ratio of earnings to combined                                         
  fixed charges and preferred                                         
  securities distributions                         1.03                         1.17
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 26, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
L. Slade, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.

Dated: October 4, 2006

/s/ COLIN L. SLADE
--------------------------
Colin L. Slade
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
From: Gorman, Robert (OST)



### Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:36 AM 

### To: Ben Edelman; 'Robert Silverberg' 

### Cc: Alec.Bramlett@aa.com; Podberesky, Samuel (OST); 

### 0015, Jonathan (OST); Jeff Johnson Ujohnson@sgbdc.com) (jjohnson@sgbdc.com) 

### Subject: Grant of Motion of September 20, 2013, Dkt DOT-OST-2013-0024 Mr. Edelman and Mr. Silverberg: By this email we are notifying the parties that we at the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings grant your agreed motion of September 20, 2013, for leave to file additional material in the docket. The parties have agreed that American will file its response by October 7, 2013. I will place this email in the docket. Best regards,

Robe r t M . Go rman T r ial Attorn ey Av i at i on En f orcemen t and Pro c e e dings , C - 7 0 Of fi c e o f t he Gen er al Coun s e l U . S . D epar tment of Trans port a t i o n 1200 New J e r sey Avenue , SE We s t Bu i ld i ng 9 6- 4 1 3 Was h i ng ton , DC 20590 O f fic e : 2 0 2
- 3 66
- 93 5 0 E-mail: robert . go rman@d ot . g ov

1
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngc4a.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
#### Albert HALSEY, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 31, 1952.

H.L. Rudd, Mt. Sterling, F. T. Allen, E. C. Roberts, Campton, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction for selling whis-ky in local option territory and imposing a fine of $50 and 30 days in jail.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
#### NEILL v. STATE.

No. 24423.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1950.

*830J. Byron Saunders, of Tyler, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

In the exercise of its police power to protect the public health, the Legislature, by Art. 709, P.C., Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 709, made it unlawful for any person to sell an article of food to which has been added sulphite. The statute is a valid exercise of legislative power.

Appellant stands here convicted of a violation of that statute under an indictment charging that he "did, then and there unlawfully sell to W. A. Welch an article of food, to-wit, meat, to which had been added sulphite.” The punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The indictment was attacked 'by motion to quash, because of the absence of an allegation that the appellant knowingly or wilfully sold meat containing sulphite, it being insisted that knowledge or wilfulness is an essential of the offense.

With this contention we do not agree. Under the express provisions of Art. 709, P.C., the sale of an article of food containing sulphite is made unlawful. Neither knowledge nor intent is a part of that offense. Lack of knowledge on the part of the accused that the article of food contained sulphite arises only as a matter of defense under the general statute relating to the defense of mistake of fact. Art. 41, P.C.

 Ordinarily, an indictment drawn in the language of the statute creating and defining the offense is sufficient. 23 Tex. Jur., Sec. 34, p. 635. This the indictment did, in the instant case, and it is therefore deemed sufficient.

In support of his contention appellant cites the cases of Vaughn v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 255, 219 S.W. 206, Morris v. State. 93 Tex.Cr.R. 99, 245 S.W. 915. and Ham v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 271, 40 S.W.2d 152. In those cases, knowledge became an essential element of the offense by reason of the wording of the statute prescribing the penalty.

No such provision is found in Art. 717, P.C. prescribing the penalty for the offense here charged.

The undisputed facts show that appellant was the owner and operator of a meat market in the City of Tyler. He sold to a State pure food inspector a half pound of ground meat which he took from a pan in a meat display box or case in the market. The meat so sold contained a considerable amount of sulphite.

Such facts showed appellant guilty, as charged, and established a prima facie case for the State. ^

Appellant’s defense was a lack of knowledge on his part that the meat contained sulphite.

That defense, which was rejected, the trial court pertinently submitted to the jury in his charge.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3276 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3276

 To prohibit the operation of an exercise facility for Members of the 
         House of Representatives during a Government shutdown.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 2013

   Mr. Foster (for himself and Mr. Murphy of Florida) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the operation of an exercise facility for Members of the 
         House of Representatives during a Government shutdown.

    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 ``Shutdown Prioritization Act'' or the 
``SPA Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING OPERATION OF MEMBER EXERCISE FACILITY DURING 
              SHUTDOWN.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Architect of the Capitol may not operate an 
exercise facility for Members of the House of Representatives during a 
Government shutdown.
    (b) Definitions.--In this Act--
            (1) a ``Government shutdown'' shall be considered to be in 
        effect if there is a lapse in appropriations for any Federal 
        agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a 
        regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution; and
            (2) the term ``Members of the House of Representatives'' 
        includes any Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
#### WORTHAM INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al. v. STATE ex rel. FAIRFIELD CONSOL. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.

No. 3071.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Dec. 4, 1952.

W. W. Mason, Mexia, Bradley & Geren, Groesbeck, for appellants.

Bowlen Bond, Teague, Elmer McVey, County Atty., Fairfield, Wayne Lawrence, Teague, Ralph W. Yarborough, Austin, for appellees.

HALE, Justice.

This is an attempted appeal from a final judgment rendered in a proceeding which was instituted on an information in the nature of a quo warranto. For a full statement of the issues involved in the case we refer to the opinion of this court on a former appeal as reported in Wortham Independent School Dist. v. State ex rel. Fairfield Consolidated Independent School Dist., 244 S.W.2d 838 (error refused n. r. e.).

On August 18, 1952, the 87th Judicial District Court of Freestone County, being of the opinion that the issues in the case were res judicata by reason of the prior judgment involved on the former appeal, rendered and entered its final judgment, decreeing the acts of appellants in attempting to detach certain territory from the Fairfield Consolidated Independent School District to be illegal, null and void and permanently enjoining appellants from any further effort to accomplish the attempted disannexation. Appellants duly excepted to the judgment and decree and gave notice of appeal therefrom at the time when the same was signed and entered by the court below on August 18, 1952, but they did not file any transcript in this court until October 1, 1952, and they did not at any time file any motion for an extension of time within which to file the transcript. Appellees have filed their motion herein to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the transcript was not filed in this court within twenty days after final judgment, as required by Rule 384, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

In our opinion, the motion of appellees to dismiss is well taken and must be. granted. We think the requirements of Rule 384 with respect to appeals in quo warranto proceedings are mandatory and *496jurisdictional and that a failure to file the transcript in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time or under the conditions therein specified is fatal to an attempted appeal. Our opinion is based in part upon the prior holding in the following cases: State ex rel. Crawford v. Wagner, 203 S. W.2d 795 (er. ref.); Mathis Independent School Dist. v. Odem Independent School Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 270.

Accordingly, the motion of appellees to dismiss is granted and the attempted appeal is hereby dismissed.

LESTER, C. J., took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3351 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3351

To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences 
                         in returning to work.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2013

 Mrs. Beatty (for herself, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Clarke) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To assist survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences 
                         in returning to work.

    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 ``Return to Work Awareness Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. ASSISTING SURVIVORS OF STROKE AND OTHER DEBILITATING HEALTH 
              OCCURRENCES IN RETURNING TO WORK.

    The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Accommodation 
Network, may disseminate information and promote awareness among 
survivors of stroke and other debilitating health occurrences, such as 
traumatic brain injury and heart attack, and the families of such 
survivors, as well as among private employers, government agencies, 
employee representatives, and service providers to--
            (1) assist survivors of stroke and such other debilitating 
        health occurrences in returning to work;
            (2) improve survivor's employability and demonstrate to 
        employers the most effective ways to capitalize on the value 
        and talent that these survivors add to the workplace; and
            (3) enhance self-employment and entrepreneurship options 
        for survivors.
                                 <all>
```
# Mendota DXV Direct Vent Gas Fireplace Specifications:

Minimum Framing Dimensions: DXV 

### 35: 311/2 11 H x 37 1/811W x 1611 0 DXV 

### 42: 33 11 H x 41'W x 1611 0 DXV 

### 45: 38 1/811 H x41 11W x 2011 0 DXV 60: 4111H X48 11W x 22110 Wall or Corner Installation Dimensions A B 

### C D 

### E F G H I 

### J K DXV 

### 35 29 11 311/211 35 7/8 11 15 1/211 22 1/411 4 5/8 11 111/811 26 1/411 52 17/3211 37 1/811 1111 

### Standard Equipment: Fiberglo log set, coals, DXV 35TF & 42: 2-level burner; DXV 35DT & DXV 45: 3-level burner; DXV 60: 3-level burner. Blower with rheostat, firebrick, neo-ceram glass, thermostat. DXV 

### 42 DXV 

### 45 DXV 60 311/4 11 3411 36 1/1611 31 3/411 38 1/811 4111 40 11 40 11 463/8 11 15 1/211 19 1/211 21 3/411 33 11 345/8 11 39 1/411 5 1/211 77/8 11 7 1/1611 16 1/211 17 5/16 11 195/811 313/411 363/8 11 40 15/1611 63 1/211 72 3/411 81 7/8 11 453/411 511/2 11 57 7/8 11 15 1/211 17 1/411 185/8



### Options: Black, Cast, Copper, Nickel, Silver, Brass, and 24K Gold fronts, wall switch, remote control, Versiheat. 

### Specifications: 

### BTUH: OXV 350TII
- Hi 33,000 Lo 13,400 

### OXV 35T
- Hi 33,000 Lo 15,000 

### OXV 42 - Hi 40,000 Lo 20,000 

### OXV 45 - Hi 45,000 Lo 7,500 

### OXV 60 - Hi 60,000 Lo 10,000 

### Efficiency:

................. .Thermal up to 86.4% AFUE up to 73.4% 

### Gas Supply:

............................ Natural or LP 

### Vent Size

...................... 

### OXV 60, 45 - 5" x 8" 35T rear, 350T rear - 5" x 8"



### OXV 42 

### OXV 35 TF
- 4" x 6" , 

### Pilot System:

........................Standing Pilot 

### Safety Controls:

......................AGA Certified 

### Safety Tested:

....................Warnock Hersey to AGAIANSI Std. 

### Shipping Weight:

............ 

### OXV 35 - 185 Ibs. 

### OXV 42 - 220 Ibs. 

### OXV 45 - 250 Ibs. 

### OXV 60 - 275 Ibs.
Consult your Owners Manual for all final dimensions. Warnock Hersey 

## ,-, Products, specifications, and prices subject to change without notice. Mendota products are manufactured in the U.S.A .;; M®
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp.(the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 27, 2003


By:  /s/ THOMAS J. STIRNWEIS
   ---------------------------
Thomas J. Stirnweis
Corporate Controller and Treasurer

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                       945
<INVENTORY>                                        203
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,777
<PP&E>                                           8,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,406
<SALES>                                         14,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,733
<CGS>                                            1,633
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,759)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.87)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6787

MICHAEL DERRICK SIMMONS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

RICHARD E. BAZZLE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (0:08-cv-01028-PMD) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Derrick Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Derrick Simmons seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simmons

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### TOWN OF WINDHAM *v.*FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL.

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 529 (AC 17065), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the gathering of four members of the Windham board of *914selectmen to discuss an upcoming meeting of that board was not a ‘meeting’ for purposes of General Statutes § 1-21 because the four members did not constitute a quorum under General Statutes § l-18a (b)?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15961.

*Victor R.*Perpetua, in support of the petition.

*Richard S. Cody,*in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1998

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.