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

                                                                 Exhibit 12 (b)
                           J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                          and Consolidated Subsidiaries

           Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                53 Weeks               52 Weeks Ended
                                                 Ended     ---------------------------------------
($ Millions)                                    01/25/97   01/25/97  01/27/96  01/28/95   01/29/94
                                                --------   --------  --------  --------   --------

<S>                                             <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>    
Income from continuing operations               $   922    $   899   $ 1,333   $ 1,696    $ 1,550
    (before income taxes and
    capitalized interest)

Fixed charges

Interest (including capitalized interest) on:

    Operating leases                                180        110       102        95         97
    Short term debt                                 121        102       129        92         43
    Long term debt                                  527        312       254       225        246
    Capital leases                                    7          6         6         7          9
    Other, net                                       (5)        14         1        (1)         0

                                                -------    -------   -------   -------    -------
Total fixed charges                                 830        544       492       418        395


                                                -------    -------   -------   -------    -------
Total available income                          $ 1,752    $ 1,443   $ 1,825   $ 2,114    $ 1,945
                                                =======    =======   =======   =======    =======

Ratio of available income to combined
    fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividend requirement                            2.1        2.7       3.7       5.1        4.9
                                                =======    =======   =======   =======    =======
</TABLE>




The interest cost of the LESOP notes guaranteed by the Company is not included
in fixed charges above.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GRACE EDELMAN
, Appellant,

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2189

[ April 24, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Sandra Perlman , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE

- 16

- 019195

.

Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Maureen G. Pearcy of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Coral Gables, for appellee.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant Grace Edelman filed a claim for breach of contract under a homeowner’s insurance policy that she purchased from Appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corporation . Citizens filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. On appea l, Appellant argues that the evidence in support of Citizens’ summary judgment motion was not properly authenticated in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). In response, Citizens “concedes that the evidence in support of [its] summary judgment motion was not properly authenticated in compliance with [FRCP] 1.510(c).” Thus, Citizens agrees with Appellant that “the trial court’s ruling cannot stand.”

“ [I] t is apodictic th at summary judgments may not be granted at any type of hearing, absent the existence of ‘summary judgment evidence’ in

the record.” Eco

- Tradition, LLC v. Pennzoil

- Quaker State Co. , 137 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting TRG

- Brickell Point NE, Lt d v. Wajsblat , 34 So. 3d 53, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) )

. We accept Citizens’

con c ession of error , and thus vacate the final judgment and remand for2 further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

L EVINE
, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ. concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-10241 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas 3:95-CR-351-G)

______________________________________________

October 10, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
C hristopher Lynn Lee appeals his guilty-plea conviction a n d
sentence for two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1). Lee argues that the district court abused its2

discretion in denying his motion to disqualify defense counsel and appoint substitute counsel.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s oral ruling of February 27, 1996, and find no reversible error. Lee’s claim of conflict of interest is based upon the relationship between attorney Carroll and attorney McLarty as it relates to pursuing a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Inasmuch as the district court correctly determined that attorney Carroll was not ineffective and that there was no basis upon which to grant Lee’s motion to withdraw, there was no basis upon which to disqualify attorney McLarty. Lee was not denied conflict-free counsel when attorney McLarty did not pursue a meritless motion to withdraw. Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially on the same reasoning as the district court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRINA GUADALUPE BOLANOSVENTURA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74730

Agency No. A098-432-452

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Pedrina Guadalupe Bolanos-Ventura, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

FILED

JUN 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74730

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005),

and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Bolanos-Ventura

did not establish past persecution based on her experiences in El Salvador. See id.

at 1153-54 (two “serious” but anonymous threats coupled with harassment and de

minimis property damage did not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence

also supports the agency’s conclusion that Bolanos-Ventura failed to establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1154 (fear of future persecution

too speculative). Accordingly, Bolanos-Ventura’s asylum claim fails.

Because Bolanos-Ventura failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she

necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

See id.

Finally, Bolanos-Ventura fails to raise any substantive challenge to the

denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60

(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed

waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

225 

KA 15-01358 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TERRY L. DRAKE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

GENESEE VALLEY LEGAL AID, INC., GENESEO (JEANNIE D. MICHALSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a resentence of the Livingston County Court (Dennis

S. Cohen, J.), rendered September 9, 2010. Defendant was resentenced

upon his conviction of incest in the third degree (two counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed.

Same memorandum as in People v Drake ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[Apr. 29, 2016]).

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2    Certification of the Principal Accounting Officer 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 annual report of China RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the two month transitional period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Anna Herbst, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.  /s/ Anna HerbstPrincipal Accounting Officer Date: March 28, 2007
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JK / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HU A Z HA NG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 75373 A ge nc yN o. A 093- 052- 352 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , W A L L A C E , an dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . H uaZ hang, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd 

# FI LED DE C 29 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ K / Res ea r ch 06- 75373 2 pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , Pa l v . I NS , 204 F . 3d 9 3 5 , 9 3 7 n .2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on base d o n d i sc re panci es betw ee n Z hang ’ s t es t i m on y and do cum ent ary e vi dence re gardi ng w hen she w as ordered t o reportfor apregnancy t es t , and Z hang ’ s f ai l ure to p r o v id e ap e r s u a s iv e e x p lan a tio n f o rth e d is c r e p an c y . See G oel v. G on zales , 490 F . 3d 73 5, 73 9 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( i ncon si st enci es betw ee n t es t i m on y and do cum ent ary e vi de nc e s upporta n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng w he r e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s go t o the he artof the c l a i m ) . I n the abs e nc e of c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , Z hang’ s a s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 348 F . 3d 1153, 1156 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . B ec ause Z hang ’ s C A T cl ai m i s bas ed on the sam e t es t i m on y the agency f o u n dto b e n o t c r e d ib le , an dZ h an g p o in ts to n o o th e re v id e n c e th e a g e n c ys h o u ld h a v e c o n s id e r e d , h e rC A T c la im f a ils . Se e id . a t1156- 57. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 23(c)**[MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. LETTERHEAD]****CONSENT OF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.**As oil and gas consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name and our report dated October14, 2005, in this Form 10-K/A, incorporated in reference into Peoples Energy Corporation’s previouslyfiled Registration Statement File Nos. 333-84594 and 333-70702 on Form S-3, and 2-82760, 33-6369,033-63193, 333-62070, 333-113204, 333-116192, and 333-17701 on Form S-8.      MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00114

- CR

Adrian Thaddeus Wilson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (0884780D)

July 30 , 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL S

PER CURIAM
#### FAIRBANKS et al. v. HAYES-SAMMONS HARDWARE CO., Inc.

No. 8955.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 21, 1932.

G. D. Fairbanks, of Brownsville, for plaintiffs in error.

Strickland, Ewers & Wilkins, of Mission, for defendant in error. •

SMITH, J.

Hayes-Sammons Hardware Company, a corporation, brought this action on open account against Margaret McAllen Fairbanks and A. M. Fairbanks, alleged to be husband and wife, the husband being joined “pro for-ma” only, by express language in the petition. The defendants failing to answer, after apparently proper service, judgment was rendered against both of them indiscriminately for the amount sued for, and they have brought up the case on writ of error.

The initials of the husband were alleged in the petition to be A. M. Fairbanks, the citation was issued for service upon A. M. Fairbanks, the officer’s return shows service upon A. M. Fairbanks, judgment was rendered against A. M. Fairbanks. It is contended by plaintiffs in error that the true initials of the husband are “G. D.” and not “A. M.,” but the record does not disclose this to be so except by an affidavit imbedded in the body of the petition for writ of error, where it can have no controlling influence upon the record. Nevertheless, the fact of the misnomer is so fully conceded by defendant in error in its brief and oral argument that it cannot be ignored here. There is no statement of facts in the record, or written findings or conclusions by the trial judge.

We are of the opinion that the. record does not support the judgment against either of the plaintiffs in error.

Defendant in error joined the husband (whatever his initials ■ are) pro forma only, thereby cutting itself off from any right of affirmative recovery against him, and defendant in error freely concedes that such judgment cannot stand.

There was no allegation in defendant in error’s pleadings to show that the debt sued on was incurred in behalf of the wife’s separate estate, nor is there any other allegation of fact sufficient to charge her separate estate or render her personally liable, and therefore the personal judgment against her cannot stand. Speer’s Law of Marital Rights, § 458.

It is not deemed necessary to pass upon the questions raised by the misnomer of the husband. It may be said certainly, however, *592that there is no presumption of law that A. M. Fairbanks is the same person as G. D. .Fairbanks, and there is no pleading, even if there was evidence, that they are the same. Nor may default judgment be rendered against the one on process served upon the other, in the absence of a showing that they are in fact the same.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the quarterly report of Wilhelmina International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Murray, Principal 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 my knowledge:
  1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  May 16, 2011

/s/ John P. MurrayName:
John P. MurrayTitle:
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)
# SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Mark H
. Luttrell , Jr
. Mayor Shelby County YVONNE S. MADLOCK D I RECTOR

Mr
. Barry Stephens, P
.E. , Director Division ofAir Pollution Control HELEN MORROW , M.D
. HEALTH OFFICER

May 1 , 2014

Tennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation Ninth Floor, L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville , Tennessee 37243 Re: 2014 Shelby County Maintenance Plan Revi sion (The Off-Set Plan) Dear Mr. Stephens, 

### PubHcHealth Prevent. Promo t e . Protect.

The Shelby County Health Department (Department) has submitted the above referenced plan to your office for distribution to the Tennes see State Air Pollution Control Board
. It is anticipated that the Board will approve the plan in the Governor 's name for submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Region IV Headquarters in Atlanta. In keeping with EPA 's policy, we request that on approval , you submit one hard copy o f the plan which includes all attachments and one electronic copy. The Department certifies that prior to finalizing and transmitting the plan to your office , procedures were followed regarding public notice and the conduct of hearings that conform with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1 02. The Department further certifie s that the electronic copies forwarded to your office are exact duplicates of the original hard copy. The Department appreciates TDEC 's assistance in preparing and submitting this important Plan to EPA. If you require anything further , please contact me at (901) 544-7775. 

# R::7f-

**;?7~** Robert Rogers , P
.E. , Manager Pollution Control
Mission To promote , protect and improve the health and environment ofall Shelby County residents. 814 Jefferson Avenue+Memphis , Tennessee 38105 (901) 222

- 9000
Exhibit 15

<PAGE> 1

Letter Re:  Unaudited Interim Financial Information
___________________________________________________

Aetna Inc.
Hartford, Connecticut

Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements No. 333-07167, 333-07169, 33-52819, 
33-52819-01, 333-08427, 333-08429, 333-08431 and 333-05791


With respect to the subject registration statements, we 
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated 
August 4, 1997 related to our review of interim financial 
information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such 
report is not considered a part of a registration statement 
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or 
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 
of the Act.




                             By   /s/  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP  
                                 _____________________________
                                         (Signature)
                                       KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
August 4, 1997
Exhibit (11)
                                                                   ------------

                         OWENS CORNING AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001, 2000 AND 1999
<TABLE>
<S>                                                                    <C>               <C>             <C>

Basic:
                                                                       2001             2000             1999
                                                                       ----             ----             ----
                                                                    (In millions of dollars, except share data)

Net income (loss)                                                $         39      $      (478)        $    270
                                                                 ============      ============        ========
Basic weighted-average number of common
  shares outstanding (thousands)                                      55,056             54,816          54,083
                                                                      ======             ======          ======

Basic per share amount                                           $       .72       $     (8.71)        $   4.98
                                                                 ===========       ============        ========

Diluted:

Net income (loss)                                                $        39       $      (478)        $    270
                                                                 ===========       ============        ========
Weighted-average number of shares outstanding
  (thousands)                                                       55,056               54,816          54,083
Weighted-average common equivalent shares
  (thousands):
    Non-vested restricted shares                                        299                   -             614
    Deferred awards                                                      24                   -             189
    Shares from assumed conversion of
      preferred securities                                            4,566                   -           4,566
                                                                 ----------        ------------         -------
Diluted weighted-average number of common
  shares outstanding and common equivalent
  shares (thousands)                                                59,945               54,816          59,452
                                                                    ======               ======          ======

Diluted per share amount                                         $      .66        $      (8.71)       $   4.67
                                                                 ==========        =============       ========

</TABLE>