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

                                                                                                              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 (UNAUDITED)
                                                                   (dollars in thousands)



                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED              FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 26, 2008                  DECEMBER 28, 2007               DECEMBER 29, 2006
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 63,795           $ 74,535        $ 63,795           $ 74,803         $ 63,795            $ 74,785
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    61,880             63,795          61,880             63,795           61,880              63,795
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 61,880           $ 63,795        $ 61,880           $ 63,795         $ 61,880            $ 63,795
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Bombay Company, Inc. quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine months
ended October 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000096287
<NAME> THE BOMBAY COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                            9765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      96776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                123453
<PP&E>                                          101152
<DEPRECIATION>                                   55678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  179964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            26563
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38141
<OTHER-SE>                                      108349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    179964
<SALES>                                         226232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                226232
<CGS>                                           169101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   239452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1431)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11789)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4657)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-181-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Verne D. Pecho, the Vice President Finance &
Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|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.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Verne D. Pecho
Vice President Finance & Administration
and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D15-5477

_____________________________

JAMES H. TIPLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

T. Patterson Maney, Judge.

May 23, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Crystal McBee Frusciante, Sunrise; and Michael Ufferman of 

Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Amanda D. Stokes and 

Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Highway Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of Intent.

# SUMMARY:

                        The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an                               ( print page 64475)                            environmental impact statement is no longer being prepared for a previously proposed highway project [FEGC 419-3(44)] in Rutland County, Vermont.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Sikora, Jr., FHWA Environmental Program Manager, P.O. Box 568, Montpelier, Vermont 05601, telephone: (802) 828-4423; or David J. Scott, P.E., Director of Project Development, Vermont Agency of Transportation, National Life Building, Drawer 33, Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5001, telephone: (802) 828-2663.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a bypass or upgrade of U.S. Routes 4 and 7 in Rutland, Vermont, was published by FHWA in the March 22, 1993                     **Federal Register**                    . A Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed project was issued in the December 19, 1997                     **Federal Register**                    . The DEIS was circulated with the comment period ending on March 6, 1998.                

Because of the many environmental issues associated with the preferred alternative, the Vermont Legislature terminated the environmental impact study for the project in Section 1(c)(2) of Act 156 of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session. Accordingly, FHWA has determined that a Final Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

Issued on October 19, 2000.

Kenneth R. Sikora, Jr.,

Environmental Program Manager, Montpelier, Vermont.

[FR Doc. 00-27603  Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
EXHIBIT F 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-6 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 2
 	
	



	
	
	
	
	 

  !"!! #"$!! $%&$%

$'()*()+,'-./012)+&3"%&!%$4$4+&55+/012)6+/*6*/7*84+

$%&$%+!+

9:;<=>9?+>:@ABCDCE=:?+DD@+

&*FG0)H6+%*,2('5'10*6+##$+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++IJKLI+M'(+NH/OH(+&7*(G*P+!G0)*+QLLP+"/70(*P+$&+KRQISP+!& +++++++++++++++++++++++++TI+KSK+UVI+WUJU

!GXY*,)Z+[

()*/+)*\)+2*/*

HO*Z+[

()*/+)*\)+2*/*

*66H1*Z+[

()*/+.'G/+,'OO*()+2*/*

OH05Z+[

()*/+*OH05+H88/*66

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 27-6 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 2
CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
Order entered October 30, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01343-CV

MATT MALOUF, Appellant

V.

STERQUELL PSF SETTLEMENT, L.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-02371

ORDER

This order is the third in connection with a September 27, 2018 unopposed motion to 

supplement the reporter’s record with a copy of plaintiff’s exhibit 114. Our first order, dated 

September 28, 2018, granted the motion and directed court reporter Vielica Dobbins to file the 

supplemental record no later than October 8, 2018. After Ms. Dobbins failed to comply or 

otherwise communicate with the Court, we issued a second order directing her to file the record 

no later than October 22, 2018. Again, Ms. Dobbins failed to comply and, as of this date, she 

has not otherwise communicated with the Court. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Dobbins to file the supplemental record by 3:00 p.m. on 

November 2, 2018. Failure to comply could result in an order that Ms. Dobbins not sit as a 

reporter until the record is filed.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Dale B. 

Tillery, Presiding Judge of the 134th Judicial District Court; Ms. Dobbins; and the parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANATOLIO BARCO ARAGON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71147 

Agency No. A214-276-171 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Anatolio Barco Aragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71147 

agency’s denial of a continuance and decision to deem an application waived for 

failure to adhere to an imposed deadline. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 

(9th Cir. 2008) (continuance); Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(deeming application waived). We review de novo due process claims. Lin v. 

Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying 

Aragon’s motion to continue and deeming his application for relief waived for 

failure to adhere to the stated filing deadline. The IJ had previously notified 

Aragon and his counsel of the filing deadline and consequences of missing it, the 

agency considered and rejected Aragon’s reason for the continuance, and Aragon 

was represented by counsel, was provided an opportunity to file an application for 

relief, and has not shown that the timing of his receipt of his Freedom of 

Information Act record prevented him from filing his application. See Taggar, 736 

F.3d at 889 (agency did not abuse discretion in deeming application waived for 

failing to adhere to deadline imposed by the IJ); Cui, 538 F.3d at 1292

(reasonableness of petitioner’s conduct a factor to consider when reviewing the 

denial of a continuance); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 

(9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an alien is given a full and fair opportunity to be 

represented by counsel, prepare an application for . . . relief, and to present 

testimony and other evidence in support of the application, he or she has been 
3 19-71147 

provided with due process.”).

Finally, Aragon’s contention that the IJ failed to advise him of his apparent 

eligibility for cancellation of removal is unsupported where he had already asserted 

his intention to seek that form of relief. 

Aragon’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
* The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-1464

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Arthur L. Ballard, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 10, 2002 Filed: September 19, 2002

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arthur L. Ballard appeals his 24-month sentence for conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344 (2000). Ballard contends the district court * should not have held him liable for the entire amount of the loss caused by the conspiracy ($64,591.55), but only for the $7,800 loss he directly caused. We disagree. The total loss of $64,591.55 resulted from “reasonably foreseeable acts . . . of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal-2- activity.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2001). Ballard “‘benefitted from his co-conspirator’s activities,’” he “‘demonstrated a substantial level of commitment to the conspiracy,’” and he knew the “acts of fraud committed by [one other co-conspirator] were remarkably similar” to his own. United States v. Bad Wound , 203 F.3d 1072, 1076-77 (8 th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Brown , 148 F.3d 1003, 1008 (8 th Cir. 1998)). Thus, the district court did not commit error when it held Ballard responsible for the entire loss caused by the conspiracy and sentenced him accordingly. Ballard raises two additional arguments. First, he argues the district court should have sentenced him as a minor participant. Having reviewed the district court’s factual findings about Ballard’s role in the conspiracy, we conclude the findings are free from clear error. See United States v. Fellers , 285 F.3d 721, 726 (8 th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). Second, Ballard contends the district court committed error by ordering his sentence to run consecutively to–rather than concurrently with–a Missouri sentence for second-degree burglary. United States v. Plumley , 207 F.3d 1086, 1093 (8 thCir. 2000) (standard of review). When Ballard participated in the bank fraud conspiracy, he was on conditional release from serving his sentence for burglary; the conspiracy conviction caused the conditional release to be revoked. In this situation, the district court acted properly when it determined the two sentences should run consecutively. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, cmt. n.6 (2001). For the reasons stated above, we affirm Ballard’s sentence. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### SMITHERMAN v. STATE.

No. 26344.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated with the punishment assessed at a fine of $100.

*413There is nothing presented for the consideration of this court in the absence of statement of facts and bills of exception. All proceedings revealed by the transcript appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: May 21, 2015 519576

________________________________ In the Matter of ROBERT LOGAN, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: March 31, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Robert Logan, Comstock, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record, and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been ordered refunded to petitioner's inmate account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Shepherd v Fischer, 122 AD3d-2- 519576

1229, 1229 [2014]). Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, 2006 (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 (subject to the Company's position prevailing in regard to the
unresolved SEC comment, as more fully described in the Report); 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 15, 2007


By: /s/ THOMAS J. STIRNWEIS
    ---------------------------------
    Thomas J. Stirnweis
    Vice President, Treasurer and
    Chief Financial Officer

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.