alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2


                              MS ACQUISITION CORP.
                        INFORMATION ON RATIO OF EARNINGS
                          TO FIXED CHARGES COMPUTATION
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        1997        1996        1995          1994        1993

<S>                                                <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>
Net income (loss) before the effect
 of accounting changes                             $   (2,974)  $   3,436    $   4,576    $   6,595     $   915
Income taxes                                           (1,384)      1,972        1,877        4,000         930
                                                   ----------   ---------    ---------    ---------    --------
Pre-tax income (loss)                                  (4,358)      5,408        6,453       10,595       1,845
Fixed charges per below                                12,661      11,013        9,795        9,800       9,659
                                                   ----------   ---------    ---------    ---------    --------
Earnings (losses) from operations                       8,303      16,421       16,248       20,395      11,504
                                                   ----------   ---------    ---------    ---------    --------

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                   11,148       9,406        8,579        8,929       9,020
    Debt amortization                                     607         763          442          198          99
    Rent expense - portion of operating
     rentals representative of the interest factor        906         844          774          673         540
                                                   ----------   ---------    ---------    ---------    --------
Total fixed charges                                    12,661      11,013        9,795        9,800       9,659
                                                   ----------   ---------    ---------    ---------    --------

Ratio of income to fixed charges                          (1)         1.5          1.7          2.1         1.2
</TABLE>



(1) The deficiency of earnings from operations versus fixed charges was $4.4
million for the year ended December 28, 1997.
Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 30, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00099-CR 

PATRICK LAMAR ADGER, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F13-56945-S 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

A jury convicted Patrick Lamar Adger of murder. During the punishment phase, 

appellant pleaded true to having two prior felony convictions. After finding the enhancement 

paragraphs true, the jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s 

attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 

The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief 

presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable 

grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders

cases). 
 –2– 

 Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, 

appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate 

court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the 

appeal. 

 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

160099F.U05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

PATRICK LAMAR ADGER, Appellant 

No. 05-16-00099-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F13-56945-S. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Fillmore and Stoddart participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered November 30, 2016.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM F. HORNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-17183

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00214-MMDWGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

William F. Horne appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his action against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) arising from the 

assessment of penalties and a tax lien. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-17183 

State of Neb. ex rel. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 678-79 (9th Cir. 

1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Horne’s action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction because Horne failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he 

complied with the prerequisites to challenging a penalty assessed under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6700. See 26 U.S.C. § 6703(c)(1), (2) (prerequisites to challenging a § 6700 

penalty); Korobkin v. United States, 988 F.2d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 1993) (method by 

which a taxpayer may challenge a §6700 penalty); Thomas v. United States, 755 

F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1985) (with one exception, the district court has no 

jurisdiction over suits for a refund of penalty amounts paid until the taxpayer has 

paid the full amount of the contested penalty assessment).

The district court properly denied as moot Horne’s motion to remand. See 

Bentson, 146 F.3d at 678-79 (a district court’s decision to remand a removed case 

is reviewed de novo and once a case is properly removed, a district court has the 

authority to decide whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
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 unani 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). 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 M ARTIN PI NEDA M ARTINEZ; HE L AD I A G ON Z AL E Z DE P I NE DA , P et i t i o n ers, 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. 08- 73694 A ge nc yN os . A 096- 064- 308

A 096- 064- 309 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an 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 S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S I L V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN .R . S M T I H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . M art i n P i ne daM art i ne z and H e l a di aG onz a l e z de P i ne da , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of

M e xi c o, pe t i t i on 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 pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order s um m ar i l y a ff i rm i ng an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”)



# FI LED SEP 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73694 2 r e m o v a l o r d e r . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e d is m is s in p art an dd e n yin p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the IJ ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that pe t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o s how e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l yunus ua l har ds hi p t o a qu a lif y in g r e la tiv e . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) ; M art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 424 F .3 d9 2 6 , 9 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T o the e xt e ntpe t i t i one r s c ont e nd tha tthe B I A ’ s s tr e am l i ne d or de rdi d not d e m o n s tr a te s u f

f ic ie n t c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e h ar d s h ip f

a c to r s in d e n y in g th e ir can cel l at i o n o f rem o v al ap p l i cat i o n s, th ei r ch al l en g e i s fo recl o sedb y Falc on Ca rr ic h e v . A s h c r o

ft , 35 0 F . 3d84 5, 85 1 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JERRY LEE KEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-97-33, CA-99-796-2)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lee Key, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States

Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

August 2, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on August 3, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lee Key seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Key, Nos. CR-97-33; CA-99-796-2 (S.D.W.

Va. Aug. 3, 2000).* 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.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION
 
 
 The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.
 
 Jiri Nor,
the Chief Executive Officer and Anthony Durkacz, the Vice President, Finance of
Astris Energi Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:
 
 1. the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; and
 
 2.  the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Astris Energi
Inc.
 
 ASTRIS
ENERGI INC.
 
 
 By: /s/
Jiri K. Nor---------------
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 Date:
April 29, 2005
 
 ASTRIS
ENERGI INC.
 
 
 By: /s/
Anthony Durkacz
 ---------------
 Vice
President, Finance
 Date:
April 29, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60773-60774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From All Terms, 
Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement 
Between the City of Vero Beach and the Federal Aviation Administration 
for the Vero Beach Regional Airport, Vero Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain 
airport properties 2.58 acres at the Vero Beach Regional Airport, 
Florida from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as 
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the Vero 
Beach Regional Airport, dated October 3, 1947. The City of Vero Beach 
dedicated a 2.58 acre tract along Airport Drive to become a Public 
Right-of-Way. This release will be retroactive for the improvements 
along the airport entrance roadway by the City of Vero Beach. The Fair 
Market Value (FMV) of this parcel has been determined to be 
$112,134.12.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by 
appointment only, for inspection at the Vero Beach Regional Airport and 
the FAA Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Vero Beach 
Regional Airport, P.O. Box 1389, 3400 Cherokee Drive, Vero Beach, FL 
32961 and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 
Drive, Suite 400,

[[Page 60774]]

Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be 
delivered or mailed to: Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, Orlando 
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, 
Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
    In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Eric Menger, Airport Director, Vero Beach 
Regional Airport, P.O. Box 1389, 3400 Cherokee Drive, Vero Beach, FL 
32961-1389.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, FL, on August 23, 2016.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-21225 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# C_2015338EN.01000401.xml

| 13.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 October 2015

(2015/C 338/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1373 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4604 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74010 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3017 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0928 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1580 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,108 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,86 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2246 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4130 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3177 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5429 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4702 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8141 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6905 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5897 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 298,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0949 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1917 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6265 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 285,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7170 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,007 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,4822 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,204 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2818 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,6802 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,6430 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1373

JPY

Japanese yen

136,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4604

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74010

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3017

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0928

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1580

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,108

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,86

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2246

RON

Romanian leu

4,4130

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3177

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5429

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4702

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8141

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6905

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5897

KRW

South Korean won

1 298,28

ZAR

South African rand

15,0949

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1917

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6265

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 285,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7170

PHP

Philippine peso

52,007

RUB

Russian rouble

69,4822

THB

Thai baht

40,204

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2818

MXN

Mexican peso

18,6802

INR

Indian rupee

73,6430

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00396-CV 

ALVIN JONES AND MONICA 

JONES, D/B/A DSPM PRINTING

APPELLANTS

V.

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TARRANT 

COUNTY, FORT WORTH 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, TARRANT COUNTY 

HOSPITAL DISTRICT, TARRANT 

REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, 

AND TARRANT COUNTY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT

APPELLEES 

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

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 153-D03741-15

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On November 8, 2016, we notified appellants in accordance with rule of 

appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $205

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellants have not paid the 

$205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellants failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: SUDDERTH, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DELIVERED: December 1, 2016

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’

fees).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00103-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.E.B., A 

CHILD

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

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

After review of the reporter’s record of the trial court’s July 29, 2011 

abatement hearing and pursuant to appellant’s statement on record that he no 

longer wishes to continue this appeal, it is the court=s opinion that we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: August 11, 2011

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
-8-

<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 14(a)(ii)


                    Yearly Certificateholders' Statement (K)

           CAPITOL REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1996-1

     Under subsection 5.3(b) of the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement dated as of
     September  1, 1996 by and between  Chevy Chase  Bank,  F.S.B.,  a federally
     chartered savings bank, as Transferor and Servicer, and the Chase Manhattan
     Bank, as Trustee and Custodial  Agent  (hereinafter  as such  agreement may
     have been, or may from time to time be, amended,  supplemented or otherwise
     modified, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement"),  Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.,
     as the  Servicer,  is required  to prepare  certain  information  each year
     regarding current  distributions on the Certificates and the performance of
     the  Capitol  Revolving  Home Loan Trust  1996-1 (the  "Trust")  during the
     related  Collection Period. The information that is required to be prepared
     with respect to the distribution to Holders (the  "Certificateholders")  of
     the Certificates for the calendar year ended December 31, 2000 is set forth
     below.  Certain of the information is presented on the basis of an original
     principal amount of $1,000 per Certificate, as the case may be. Capitalized
     terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned them
     in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

A.   Information Regarding the Current Year Distribution to Certificateholders
     (Per $1,000 Original Principal Amount of a Certificate).


     1.   The amount, if any, of principal included in
          such distribution, separately stating the
          components thereof (including the portion
          thereof attributable to collections in respect of
          the Mortgage Loans)...............................     $79.71

     2.   The amount of Investor Certificate Interest  included in
            such distribution, the related Investor Certificate
            Rate and the portion
          thereof attributable to collections in
          respect of the Mortgage Loans.....................     $17.9306



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Certificate
to be duly executed this 20th day of March, 2001

                              CHEVY CHASE BANK, F.S.B.
                              as Servicer

                                  By:   Jenni Diamond
                                        ------------------
                                        Jenni Diamond
                                        Vice President
# C_2015299EN.01002801.xml

| 11.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/28

---

Call for expression of interest — invitation to present products suitable for use as a marker in gas oils and kerosene

(2015/C 299/06)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of the call for expression of interest inviting applicants to present products suitable for use as a fiscal marker in gas oil and kerosene.

The call for expression of interest including the documents to be submitted and the procedure to be followed is available via this link:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/excise_duties/energy_products/other_energy_tax_leg/index_en.htm

---