alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.2**SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**(Dollars in millions)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Fixed Charges:
Interest
 $                     70 
 $                     47 
 $                     48 
 $                     40 
 $                     50 
Interest portion of annual rentals
3 
2 
2 
                          2 
                          3 
Total fixed charges for purpose of ratio
 $                     73 
 $                     49 
 $                     50 
 $                     42 
 $                     53 
Earnings:
Pretax income from continuing operations
 $                  377 
 $                  391 
 $                  360 
 $                  387 
 $                  309 
Add: total fixed charges (from above)
73 
49 
50 
42 
53 
Total earnings for purpose of ratio
 $                  450 
 $                  440 
 $                  410 
 $                  429 
 $                  362 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
6.16 
8.98 
8.20 
10.21 
6.83********
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 15414.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1932.

John N. Gauntt and Joe W. Taylor, both of Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, burglary; the punishment, eight years in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception are found in the record. Notice of appeal was given and entered of record on December 23, 1931. The statement of facts was filed in the trial court on April 25, 1932, which was more than ninety days after notice of appeal was given. This was too late, and same cannot be considered under the provisions of article 760, C. C. P. Davis v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 348, 287 S. W. 1100.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, J.

Appellant did not object to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the search of his automobile. However, he takes the position that the statement of facts shows that the search was illegal, and insists that notwithstanding the evidence was admitted *598upon the trial without objection, this court should reverse the judgment if there is no other evidence in the record than that which might have been eliminated by proper objection at the time it was tendered by the state. The holding in Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 282, where the identical question was considered, is controlling. It was there held that the position taken by the appellant could not be sustained.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21398]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. EDT, Friday, September 20, 2024.

PLACE: CFTC Headquarters Conference Center, Three Lafayette Centre, 
1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(``Commission'' or ``CFTC'') will hold this meeting to consider Final 
Commission Guidance Regarding the Listing of Voluntary Carbon Credit 
Derivative Contracts.
    The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and 
posted on the Commission's website at https://www.cftc.gov. Members of 
the public are free to attend the meeting in person, or have the option 
to listen by phone or view a live stream. Instructions for listening to 
the meeting by phone and connecting to the live video stream will be 
posted on the Commission's website.
    In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place 
of the meeting, will be posted on the Commission's website.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary 
of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

     Dated: September 13, 2024.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-21398 Filed 9-16-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
exv10w2



 





EXHIBIT 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.

2002 INTERNATIONAL STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




     The ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. 2002 International Stock Purchase Plan
(the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:



1. Section 1.2(t) of the Plan is amended and restated as follows:





	 	 	“(t)   “Offering Period” shall have the following meaning:






	 	(i)	 	During the period commencing
on or after the date of adoption of the Plan and
ending on October 1, 2004, “Offering Period”
means each six-month period commencing on any
April 1 and October 1; provided, however, that,
on a one-time basis, the Offering Period
commencing October 1, 2004 shall end on April 30,
2005.
	 
	 	(ii)	 	After April 30, 2005,
“Offering Period” means each six-month period
commencing on any May 1 and November 1.






	 	 	Options shall be granted on the Date of Grant and exercised
on the Date of Exercise, as provided in Section 3.1(a) and
3.2(a), respectively.”





2. This First Amendment shall be effective as of August 15, 2004.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. hereby executes this
First Amendment to the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan on this 12th day of October, 2004.



ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.




	 	 	 
	BY:	 	
/s/ AIMEE S. WEISNER



Aimee S. Weisner

Corporate Vice President, General

  Counsel and Secretary
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### WALLACE DAVIS VS. REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY

(CC-08-0406)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant, a former inmate at the Eastern Regional Jail, seeks to recover $62.00 for an identification wallet that he alleges was misplaced by respondent. Claimant had the wallet when he was booked at the Eastern Regional Jail on March 26, 2008, but he did not have the wallet when he was released on July 8, 2008.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim and that the amount is fair and reasonable. The Court is aware that respondent does not have a fiscal method for paying claims of this nature; therefore, the claim has been submitted to this Court for determination.

This Court has taken the position in prior claims that if a bailment situation has been created, respondent is responsible for property of an inmate which is taken from that inmate, remains in its custody, and is not produced for return to the inmate.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to the claimant herein in the amount of $62.00.

Award of $62.00.
#### VAUGHAN v. STATE.

No. 16398.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1934.

A. C. Chrisman, of Cleburne, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code

I,Edileen Salicrup, the chief financial officer of ClearComm, L.P., certify that (i) theMarch 31, 2006 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the March 31, 2006 10-Q Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofClearComm, L.P.
|        | /s/ Edileen Salicrup    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Edileen Salicrup        |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | May 22, 2006       |   |

 

----
# C_2022066EN.01006101.xml

| 8.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/61

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10574 - ADVENT / CALDIC)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 66/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Advent International Corporation and/or its affiliates (‘Advent’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Advent International Corporation and/or its affiliates (‘Advent’, USA),

| — | Caldic Holdco B.V. (‘Caldic’, the Netherlands). |
| --- | --- |

—

Caldic Holdco B.V. (‘Caldic’, the Netherlands).

Advent will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Caldic.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Advent is a private equity investor based in Boston, USA, focusing on the acquisition of equity stakes and the management of investment funds in various sectors, including industrial, technology, retail, consumer and leisure, healthcare, and business and financial services, |
| --- | --- |

—

Advent is a private equity investor based in Boston, USA, focusing on the acquisition of equity stakes and the management of investment funds in various sectors, including industrial, technology, retail, consumer and leisure, healthcare, and business and financial services,

| — | Caldic is an international provider of value-add life sciences and specialty chemicals solutions serving customers in the life science and industrial sectors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Caldic is an international provider of value-add life sciences and specialty chemicals solutions serving customers in the life science and industrial sectors.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10574 - ADVENT / CALDIC

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
**SUBSIDIARIES OF OSMONICS, INC.**

 

PercentageOwnership
|   | 100% |   | VAPONICS, INC.                          | A Massachusetts Corporation  |
|--------|------|--------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|   | 100% |   | PORETICS CORPORATION                    | A Delaware Corporation       |
|   | 100% |   | OSMONICS ASIA/PACIFIC LTD.              | A Hong Kong Corporation      |
|   | 100% |   | AUTOTROL CORPORATION                    | A Wisconsin Corporation      |
|   | 100% |   | OSMONICS S.A.                           | A France Corporation         |
|   | 100% |   | OSMONICS INTL. SALES CORP.              | A Virgin Islands Corporation |
|   | 100% |   | MICROL SYSTEMS, LTD.                    | An England Corporation       |
|   | 100% |   | DESALINATION SYSTEMS, INC.              | A California Corporation     |
|   | 50%  |   | NIPPON AUTOTROL K.K.                    | A Japan Corporation          |
|   | 100% |   | AQUAMATIC, INC.                         | A Delaware Corporation       |
|   | 100% |   | MEMBREX, INC.                           | A Delaware Corporation       |
|   | 100% |   | MICRON SEPARATIONS, INC.                | A New York Corporation       |
|   | 100% |   | MICRON SEPARATIONS  INTERNATIONAL, INC. | A Virgin Island Corporation  |   |
|   | 100% |   | ZYZATECH WATER SYSTEMS, INC.            | A Washington Corporation     |   |
|   | 100% |   | OSMONICS DEVELOPMENT  CORPORATION       | A Minnesota Corporation      |   |
|   | 100% |   | OSMONICS DEUTSCHLAND GmbH               | A German GmbH                |   |
#### TAYLOR v. CALLAHAN et al.

No. 8768.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Nov. 30, 1938.

G. A. Walters, óf San Saba, for plaintiff in error.

No briefs filed for defendant in error.

McClendon, chief justice.

This appeal is from an interlocutory order sustaining a plea of privilege of ap-pellee Frank W. Sorrell, and changing the venue as to him to Tom Green County. The order appealed from was passed October 21, 1937. The record was not tendered for filing until February 14, 1938, and the Clerk refused to file it. Thereafter appellant sued out a writ of error; and the record with the writ of error proceedings included was filed March 1, 1938.

The record not having been filed in this court within 60 days after the order was passed, and no motion to extend the time for filing having been made within fifteen days thereafter, this court lost jurisdiction over the appeal. R.C.S. Art. 1839, as amended by Acts of 43rd Leg. pp. 142, 143, ch. 67, 1933; Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1839; Wall v. Gillen, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 270.

Appeal from an interlocutory order overruling or sustaining a plea of privilege seeking to change the venue cannot be taken by writ of error. Western Electric Co. v. Wilson, 117 Tex. 203, 299 S.W. 868.

Since we have no jurisdiction to entertain either appeal, both appeals are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60409 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROY GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No.4:93-CR-133-B-O

-------------------- June 15, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roy Green, federal prisoner # 09940-042, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the denial of his motion to correct his sentence, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). That statute does not authorize a postconviction motion challenging conviction and sentence. Green has failed to raise any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See United States v. Boutwell , 896 F.2d 884, 889-90 (5th Cir. 1990)(one-judge order). Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.No. 99-60409 -2- Because Green’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### ADAMS v. STATE.

No. 20325.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1939.

Horace H. Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of marijuana; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
Order entered October 3, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00650-CV

SARAH BUCKLEW, Appellant

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS TRUSTEE FOR CIT FOR CIT HOME

EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2003-1, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01018-C

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. After we notified appellant the reporter’s 

record had not been filed because appellant had not requested the record, on September 26, 2019 

appellant requested the reporter’s record be prepared. Because our records indicate appellant is 

entitled to proceed without payment of costs, we ORDER the reporter’s record to be filed by 

October 26, 2019. 

Further, the Court is in receipt of appellant’s September 30, 2019, October 1, 2019, and 

October 2, 2019 letters to Justice Whitehill complaining about the Court’s order regarding the 

record in this case, as well as other various complaints regarding her case. We caution appellant 
that it is improper to communicate with Justices on this Court regarding a case. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 9.6. All communications regarding this case should be directed to the Clerk of the Court. Id.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2022201EN.01000201.xml

| 18.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10688 – AXA / ATALANTE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 201/02)

On 13 May 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10688. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10688. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21357]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 340 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-652, CP2024-661.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21357 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Order entered January 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01338-CV

IN RE TOMMY LEE STEWART, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F81-12433-U

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

Based on the court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s October 31, 2019 petition 

for writ of mandamus.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
#### WILSON v. STATE.

No. 15412.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1932.

John N. Gauntt and Joe W. Taylor, both of Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment assessed being nine years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception are found in the record. The statement of facts was filed more than 90 days after notice of áppeal was given, but the district judge certifies that the delay in' preparing the statement of facts was caused by the late filing of an affidavit by appellant, and that the court reporter was busy at the time, but that the statement of facts was filed as soon after the affidavit was *596presented as could be done. Under these circumstances, we have examined the statement of facts. We find the evidence supports the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, J.

Appellant did not object to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the search of his automobile. However, he takes the position that the statement of facts shows that the search was illegal, and insists that notwithstanding the evidence was admitted upon the trial without objection, this court should reverse the judgment if there is no other evidence in the record than that which might have been eliminated by proper objection at the time it was tendered by the state. The holding in Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 282, where the identical question was considered, is controlling. It was there held that the position taken by the appellant could not be sustained.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.