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
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED              FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 27, 2002                  DECEMBER 28, 2001               DECEMBER 29, 2000
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              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           $ 74,529        $ 63,795           $ 74,794         $ 63,795            $ 74,901
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


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>
#### BLACKBURN v. STATE.

No. 23301.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1946.

E. F. Fruechte, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of an aggravated assault under Section 4 of Article 1147, P.C. He was convicted^ of such offense and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $250 and by confinement in the county jail for a period of one year.

The record shows that the defendant in due time filed a motion wherein he charged that the Honorable Robert Jones, the duly elected and qualified County Judge of Baylor County, was disqualified from presiding over the trial of the case. The court, upon the hearing of the motion, sustained it. Thereupon, the State, by and through the County Attorney, agreed with the defendant upon the Honorable Isaac O. Newton as special judge, but the record fails to show that he took the oath prescribed by law. Article 554, C.C.P., provides that when the judge of the county court or county court at law is disqualified in any criminal case pending in the court of which he is judge, the parties may, by consent, agree upon a special judge to try the case. Article 555, C.C.P., provides as follows :

> “The attorney agreed upon or appointed shall, before he enters upon his duties as special judge, take the oath of office required by the Constitution.”

It will be noted from the next preceding article of the statute that the person agreed upon to try the case must take the oath prescribed by the Constitution, and unless he does so, he cannot legally perform the functions of a special judge. Consequently, each and every act on the part of such special judge, without having complied with the foregoing statute, is a nullity. Therefore, the judgment in this case must be reversed and the cause remanded. See Summerlin v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 275, 153 S.W. 890; Mims v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 176, 15 S.W.2d 628; Enloe v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 602, 150 S.W.2d 1039; Woodland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 184 S.W.2d 623, and authorities therein cited.

In addition to the error herein pointed out for a reversal of the judgment, we do not deem it improper, in view of another trial, to state that we entertain serious doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the allegations in the complaint *889and information relative to the decrepit condition of the assaulted party.

For the error herein pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          268400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   447844
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1881479
<PP&E>                                         1763326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  260381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4311299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1281701
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         12765
<OTHER-SE>                                     2873651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4311299
<SALES>                                       12967805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12967805
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9760857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              118701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3137303
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1112628
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2024675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (660000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1364675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Paul K. Laikind, Chief Executive Officer of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:

1. The annual report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
|        |     | Date: March 12, 2007 |   | By:      | /s/ Paul K. Laikind                                            |     |     |     |
|--------|----------|----------------------|--------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|
|   | * * | * *             |   | * * | Paul K. Laikind, Ph.D.,*Chief Executive Officer and President* | * * | * * | * * |

 

I,John W. Beck, Chief Financial Officer of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:

1. The annual report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
|        |     | Date: March 12, 2007 |   | By:      | /s/ John W. Beck                               |     |     |     |
|--------|----------|----------------------|--------|----------|------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|----------|
|   | * * | * *             |   | * * | John W. Beck, C.P.A.,*Chief Financial Officer* | * * | * * | * * |

 

A signed originalof these certifications has been provided to Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc.and will be retained by Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Thesecertifications are being furnished solely to accompany this quarterly reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be deemed filed forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are notto be incorporated by reference into any filing of MetabasisTherapeutics, Inc., whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
#### STEVENS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 24, 1953.

Earl B. Rose, Beattyville, Ollie James Cockrell, Jackson, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty.-.Gen., Squire N. Williams, Jr., Frankfort, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of maliciously cutting and wounding one George Little, and was sentenced to serve 10 years in the state penitentiary. On this appeal his only ground for reversal is that the court erred in failing to give a self-defense instruction.

. The evidence for the Commonwealth was that after appellant had entered into an ■ altercation- with two men, George Little approached and inquired what was the matter. Thereupon appellant “jumped at him and ’ struck him in the back with a large knife”. Defendant testified that Little first struck him, that they clinched and fell on the ground, and “that he did not have a knife .and did not cut Little but only defended himself as best he could with his fists”.

The only case cited by 'appellant is Elliott v. Commonwealth, 152 Ky. 791, 154 S.W. 25, wherein it was held that a self-defense ’ instruction should be given even though defendant denied a shooting, where the evidence, though wholly circumstantial, indicated a struggle had taken place. Combs v. Commonwealth, 196 Ky. 804, 246 S.W. 132, and. Jones, v. Commonwealth, 252 Ky. 341, 67 S.W.2d 480, are more directly in point. Therein it was held that if the evidence tends to raise an issue of self-defense, even though the defendant denies committing the act of which he is accused, he is entitled to such an instruction.

In the present case appellant testified that he and Little were engaged in combat and he was defending himself. Even though he denied using a knife, the jury could conclude that if he did so it was in self-defense. Since the issue was clearly raised, a separate instruction on this theory should have been given.

*530In the case cited by the Commonwealth, Muncy v. Commonwealth, 265 Ky. 730, 97 S.W.2d 606, it did not appear that the defendant and the deceased were engaged in an altercation or struggle.

The judgment is reversed.
**Exhibit 99.5**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, S. Gene Thompson, ChiefFinancial Officer of Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc. (the “Registrant”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

1.           TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended March31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: May  19, 2003 | By:                                                             | /s/  S.  Gene Thompson |   |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                 | S. Gene Thompson,  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
v037061_ex10-3 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing






	
REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMEN T





     This Registration Rights Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into o n by and between Nicklebys .com, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), and Oceanus Value Fund, L.P . (the
"Buyer") .


     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their respective promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Company and the Buyer hereby agree as follows:


     1 . Defmitions. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Securities Purchase Agreement entered into between the Company and the
Buyer dated concurrently herewith (the "Securities Purchase Agreement") . As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the specified meanings :


"Commission" means the Securities and Exchange Commission . "Common Stock" means the Company's $ .0001 par value common stock. "Exchange Act" means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended .


     "Holder" or "Holders" means the holder or holders, as the case may be, from time-to-time of Registrable Securities.


"Indemnified Parry" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3(c) .


"Indemnifying Parry" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3(c) .

	
"OTCBB" shall mean the OTC Bulletin Board .





     "Person" means an individual or a corporation, partnership, trust, incorporated or unincorporated association, joint venture, limited liability company, joint stock company, government (or an
agency or political subdivision thereof) or other entity of any kind .


     "Proceeding" means an action, claim, suit, investigation or proceeding (including, without limitation, an investigation or partial proceeding, such as a deposition), whether commenced or
threatened.


     "Registrable Securities" means (i) the shares of Common Stock issuable upon the exercise of the Warrant (the "Warrant Shares") and conversion of the Note (the "Conversion Shares"), (ii) any
shares issuable upon any stock split, stock dividend, recapitalization or similar event with respect to the Warrant Shares and Conversion Shares and (iii) any other dividend or other distribution with respect to, conversion or exchange of, or in
replacement of, the Registrable Securities .


C:ICorellOffcelOceanus FundWicklebys-FHCDocsWegistrationMghtsAgreement.Exec tion.npd
#### GUERINO v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Jan. 23, 1953.

Earl F. Martin, Hartford, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Wm, F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Ohio Circuit Court, A. J. Bratcher, Judge.

We are affirming the judgment fining Frank Guerino $100 and sentencing him to 30 days in jail for selling intoxicating liquor in Local Option Territory, because we do not think the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant Guerino a continuance, and because we do not think the argument of the Commonwealth’s Attorney was prejudicially erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.
### Page 1of 1 Modeling Protocol

- Avenal Energy Project Gary Rubenstein to: Gerardo Rios, Carol Bohnenkamp, Julie Walters, Tyler Fox, Roger Brode 05/05/2010 03 :41 

## PM Cc: "Gary Rubenstein", "Jim Rexroad", "Holmstead, Jeff' Show DetaiIs
History: This message has been forwarded. As discussed during our call earlier today, enclosed is a copy ofthe August 2007 dispersion modeling protocol for the Avenal Energy Project. In particular, we are interested in knowing whether the following elements ofthe protocol would be acceptable for use in an analysis ofthe project's impacts as compared with the new l-hour average N02 national ambient air quality standard: Emission sources included in the analysis Meteorological data Background ozone concentrations Background N02 concentrations 

## Gary

file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\cbohnenk\Local Settings\**Temp\notesBAAA25\~web491...** 

### 6/24/2010
HLD-005 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-1129

___________

IN RE: ELISTON F. GEORGE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

District Court of the Virgin Islands

(Related to D.V.I. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-00067)

____________________________________

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

February 23, 2017

Before: SMITH, CHIEF JUDGE, MCKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 4, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Eliston F. George filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct 

the District Court to rule on his petition for a writ of audita querela. The District Court 

has since ruled on George’s petition, and George has filed a notice of appeal. In light of 

the District Court’s action, the question George presented is no longer a live controversy, 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

so we will dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 

F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992).
#### MOORE v. RIVAS.

No. 12655.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 10, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 7, 1954.

Samuel H. Wilds; Waco, J. Marvin Ericson,; Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Harold A.Thomas, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an Exception 4 venue case. Article 1995, § 4, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Stats. Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300. The trial court overruled the plea of privilege of Edward T. Moore, the nonresident defendant. It is conceded that a cause of action was established against Frances L. Martin, the resident defendant, which was properly triable in Nueces County where the suit was filed. The petition, alleges that the defendant *959Marie Heason (also a resident of Nueces County), as agent for Moore, a resident of Aransas County, delivered Moore’s automobile into the custody of Frances L. Martin, knowing that the latter was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and an unfit person to drive such automobile on the public highways of the State of Texas, and that said Frances L. Martin negligently drove said automobile into the vehicle in which plaintiff, Manuel Rivas, was riding, causing severe bodily injuries.

The petition states a cause of action against Moore which is so intimately connected with the cause of action against Frances L. Martin that the two may be properly joined under the rule intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

As the court takes judicial notice of the live pleadings in a case, it was wholly unnecessary for plaintiff to introduce his petition in evidence. McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, p. 157, § 97. The introducing of the petition in evidence and the copying of the same in the statement of facts would have been a meaningless and useless gesture, which could have resulted in certain costs being taxed against the plaintiff under the provisions of Rule 377 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Petition P2-00] 

Notice is hereby given that China National Foreign Trade Transportation (Group) Corp. (SINOTRANS) (“Petitioner”) has petitioned, pursuant to Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. Section 1715, for a limited exemption from the tariff publishing requirements of Section 9 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app Section 1708(c). Petitioner seeks an exemption so that it can lawfully reduce rates to meet or exceed the published rates of competing ocean common carriers on one day's notice.

                    In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the petition for exemption, interested persons are requested to submit views or arguments in reply to the petition no later than 14 days following publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    . Replies shall consist of an original and 15 copies, be directed to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20573-0001, and be served on Petitioner's counsel; David P. Street, Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & Swirsky, P.C.,1054 Thirty-First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007-4492. It is also requested that a copy of the reply be submitted in electronic form (WordPerfect, Word or ASCII) on diskette or e-mailed to                     *Secretary@fmc.gov.*

Copies of the petition are available at the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, 800 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Room 1046. Parties participating in this proceeding may elect to receive service of the Commission's issuances in this proceeding through e-mail in lieu of service by U.S. mail. A party opting for electronic service shall advise the Office of the Secretary in writing and provide an e-mail address where service can be made.

By the Commission. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27827 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P