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

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P.  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (in thousands)

For the Year Ended December 31,2008

2007

2006

2005

2004Earnings:Pre-tax income from consolidated continuing operations

$
603,141

$
663,283

$
741,097

$
486,532

$
475,222Add:Pre-tax (loss) income from 50% or greater than 50% owned unconsolidated entities


(29,093
)

(9,061
)

45,313


49,939


46,124Distributed income from less than 50% owned unconsolidated entities


61,482


51,594


53,000


66,165


45,909Amortization of capitalized interest


4,927


2,462


5,027


2,772


2,525Fixed Charges


1,254,111


1,196,718


958,818


904,324


748,643Less:Income from unconsolidated entities


(32,246
)

(38,120
)

(110,819
)

(81,807
)

(81,113
)Interest capitalization


(28,451
)

(37,270
)

(34,073
)

(15,502
)

(15,546
)Earnings

$
1,833,871

$
1,829,606

$
1,658,363

$
1,412,423

$
1,221,764Fixed Charges:Portion of rents representative of the interest factor


8,996


9,032


9,052


8,869


7,092Interest on indebtedness (including amortization of debt expense)


1,196,334


1,150,416


915,693


879,953


726,025Interest capitalized


28,451


37,270


34,073


15,502


15,546Loss on extinguishment of debt


20,330











Fixed Charges

$
1,254,111

$
1,196,718

$
958,818

$
904,324

$
748,643Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


1.46
x

1.53
x

1.73
x

1.56
x

1.63
x


For
purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, "earnings" have been computed by adding fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest, to income from consolidated
continuing operations including income from noncontrolling interests and our share of income from 50%-owned affiliates which have fixed charges, and including our share of distributed operating income
from less than 50%-owned affiliates instead of our share of income from the less than 50%-owned affiliates. There are generally no restrictions on our ability to receive distributions from our
unconsolidated joint ventures where no preference in favor of the other owners of the joint venture exists. "Fixed charges" consist of interest costs, whether expensed or capitalized, the interest
component of rental expenses, losses on extinguishment of debt, and amortization of debt issuance costs.

73

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 24.10

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and each of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/ ROBERT E. SULENTICRobert E. Sulentic
| |  | ----------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:39 AM

To: 'multicoptermaui@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Information: Mu lticopter Maui LLC (Docket No. FAA-2015-1227)



### July 27, 2015

Dear Mr. Tassara:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1227). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), m odel(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) sh ould include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by August 10, 2015. If we do not receiv e the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
[Civ. No. 8249.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

June 20, 1934.]

#### C. H. ELLISON, Appellant, v. R. A. DALLUGGE et al., Respondents.

W. C. Shelton and George W. Burch, Jr., for Appellant.

Wm. Jennings Bryan, Jr., and Harry C. Cogen for Respondents.

SCOTT, J., *pro tem.*

Defendant R. A. Dallugge and his wife owned a tract of land which they wished to subdivide. They contracted with defendant Carlin G. Smith, Inc., to act as sales agent, and the latter engaged plaintiff, an engineer, to survey and lay out the tract. When the services were completed plaintiff rendered his bill, and not being paid brought this action. Default of defendant corporation was entered and at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case a motion for nonsuit was granted as to defendants Dallugge and wife. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion for nonsuit, and claims that *367the evidence was sufficient to establish a joint adventure or a partnership, or an agency.

The corporation was employed as sales agent to sell the Dallugge tract and agreed to expend $5,000 of its own money to map out and improve the land for such purpose. It was not authorized to incur obligations against Dallugge nor to employ any person at his expense. It is apparent from the evidence that plaintiff relied on the corporation and not on defendant Dallugge, and that there was no agreement of any kind between plaintiff and Dallugge. Plaintiff had done work for the corporation on previous occasions, including preliminary reports on the value and availability for sale of other tracts. ITe was informed by Smith that Dallugge owned the land and that the arrangement between the corporation and Dallugge “had all been discussed and worked out and was now in the trust department of the Pacific National Bank for signature”. Ten days or two weeks after the work commenced plaintiff ■ saw Dallugge on the property and talked with him. Plaintiff did not attempt to see the contract setting out the relationship between Dallugge and the corporation until after it was canceled. He did not ask Dallugge at any time whether the latter had authorized Smith to employ him, nor did he tell Dallugge that he was going to look to him for payment. When the work was done plaintiff billed Smith for it and did not send a bill to Dallugge or speak to him about payment of the bill until after the contract was canceled. The evidence being insufficient to support plaintiff’s case on any theory advanced by him, the motion for nonsuit was properly granted. *(Title Ins. & Trust Co.*v. *Grider,*152 Cal. 746 [94 Pac. 601]; *Hicks*v. *Post,*154 Cal. 22 [96 Pac. 878].)

Appellant’s contention that the grounds of the motion for nonsuit were not stated with sufficient certainty is not supported by the record.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Desmond, J., concurred.
# C_2015376EN.01000102.xml

| 13.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 376/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 376/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7729 — Willis Group/Towers Watson & Co)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 376/02)

On 6 November 2015, 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 English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7729. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7729. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q /A  of
Acrongenomics Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Ron Lizée, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

September 10, 2008

| | /s/
      Ron Lizée                                   
| | ------------------------------------------------------
| | Ron Lizée                                             
| | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and
      Director
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal            
| | Accounting Officer)                                   

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

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7765
WILLIAM HOLLY, Petitioner - Appellant, versusJ. D. LAMER, Warden; KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director Federal Bureau of Prisons; JANET RENO, Attorney General; GASTON CAPERTON, Governor; EVEN BAYH, Governor; PAMELA CARTER, Attorney General State of Indiana; CHARLES G. BROWN, Attorney General of West Virginia, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-95-70-5) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 18, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Holly, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:William Holly appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and his corresponding motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holly v. Lamer , No. CA-95-70-5 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 1996; Oct. 16, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LYNN D. REDEMAN
, Appellant,

v.

GE MONEY BANK and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 14

- 3262

[ March 23, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Donald W. Hafele , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013CA017703

- XXXXMB (AG)

.

Ray Garcia of The Law Office of Ray Garcia, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Sara F. Holladay

- Tobias and Emily Rottman n of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for appellee , Na tionstar Mortgage, LLC

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Evergrene Partners Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. , 143 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)

S TEVENSON

, G ROSS and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-10831

 

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALINSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2454 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the pilot 

program for alternative water source projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2021 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. OSSOFF) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the pilot program for alternative water source 

projects, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Reuse and Re5 siliency Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER 

7 SOURCE PROJECTS. 

8 Section 220 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

9 Act (33 U.S.C. 1300) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2454 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b), in the heading, by strik2 ing ‘‘IN GENERAL’’ and inserting ‘‘ESTABLISH3 MENT’’; 

4 (2) in subsection (d)— 

5 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘con6 struction’’ before ‘‘funds’’; 

7 (B) by striking paragraph (2); and 

8 (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

9 paragraph (2); 

10 (3) by striking subsection (e); 

11 (4) in subsection (i)— 

12 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

13 by striking ‘‘, the following definitions apply’’; 

14 and 

15 (B) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, 

16 by striking ‘‘water or wastewater or by treating 

17 wastewater’’ and inserting ‘‘water, wastewater, 

18 or stormwater or by treating wastewater or 

19 stormwater for groundwater recharge, potable 

20 reuse, or other purposes’’; 

21 (5) in subsection (j)— 

22 (A) in the first sentence, by striking 

23 ‘‘There is’’ and inserting the following: 

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2454 IS

1 (B) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by 

2 striking ‘‘a total of $75,000,000 for fiscal years 

3 2002 through 2004. Such sums shall’’ and in4 serting ‘‘$200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

5 2022 through 2026, to’’; and 

6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.—Of the 

8 amounts made available for grants under paragraph 

9 (1), not more than 2 percent may be used to pay the 

10 administrative costs of the Administrator.’’; and 

11 (6) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), 

12 (i), and (j) as subsections (c), (d), (e), (b), and (i), 

13 respectively, and moving those subsections so as to 

14 appear in alphabetical order. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Crim. No. 1793.

First Appellate District, Division Two.

July 18, 1934.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROBERT ROLLER, Appellant.

Robert Roller, *in pro. per.,*for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Seibert L. Sefton, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

NOURSE, P. J.

In a trial before a jury the defendant was convicted upon an information charging robbery and ■the jury fixed the offense as of the first degree. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying him a new trial.

The sole ground raised is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and the degree of the crime.

The complaining witness testified that, as he was about to enter his automobile parked on a side street near a large hotel in the business section of San Francisco, the appellant approached the right-hand side of the car and, displaying an automatic pistol, ordered him to get into the car and drive him “out into the country”. Appellant compelled the witness to drive him about town until they had reached an unfrequented street, when he compelled him to stop. Appellant then took from the witness about nine dollars in money. Throughout the ride the weapon was held at the back of the witness’ neck.

*745There is no question of error in the admission of evidence, in the instructions to the jury, or in the identification of the appellant. Appellant argues that the evidence is inherently improbable, but we are satisfied that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. ITe argues that the “weapon” might have been a water pistol because the complaining witness saw it only in the dark. But the witness testified that it was an automatic and the appellant did not take the stand to support his defense. There is no error in the record.

The judgment and the order denying a new trial are both affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 16, 1934.
# C_2014178EN.01000101.xml

| 12.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7212 — HML/MMC/MMC Superalloy Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 178/01

On 4 June 2014, 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 English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7212. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7212. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
EXHIBIT
32.1.








Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Ed
Bailey, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of LightTouch
Vein & Laser, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2009 of the Registrant, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(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
Registrant.





Dated:  August
19,
2009           By:  /s/ Ed
Bailey


Ed
Bailey


Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Accounting


Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch
Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.