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

                                  EXHIBIT 12

                             THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF (LOSSES) INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                            (Dollars in Thousands)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Six Months Ended
                                                                                     June 30,
                                                                           2001                       2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                        <C>
(Loss) income from continuing operations before income taxes                 $(487,580)                  $169,184
Add fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                             331,265                    292,857
  One-third rentals                                                              2,336                      2,585
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total fixed charges                                                        333,601                    295,442
(Loss) income from continuing operations as adjusted                         $(153,979)                  $464,626
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of (loss) income from continuing operations to fixed charges               (0.46)                      1.57
==================================================================================================================

Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis                                 $   3,184                   $  3,163
Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends                            $ 336,785                   $298,605
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of (loss) income from continuing operations to fixed charges
  and preferred stock dividends                                                  (0.46)                      1.56
==================================================================================================================
</TABLE>
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC In the Matter of: 

### WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. FAA OrderNo. 2015-3 FDMSNo. FAA-2013-0045 1 

### Served: July 16,2015 

### ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL' Bynotice served on July 14, 2015, Complainantwithdrew its appeal ofthe initial decision served by Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivanon May28, 2015. 

### THEREFORE, ITIS ORDERED THAT: Complainant's appeal is dismissed.
MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR Federal Aviation Administration



# )U)Lr
t 

### VICKI S. LEEMON3 

### \' Manager, Adjudication Branch

1 Generally, materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket are also available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.210(e)(l). 2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes ofthe decisions, the rules of practice, and other information, are available on the Internet atthe following address: 

### www.faa.gov/about/office
_org/headquarters _offices/age/pol_ adjudication/AGC400/Civil_Penalty/. See 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(2). In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw (FTRANFAA database). For additional information, see the Web site.
3 Issued under authority delegated to the ChiefCounsel and the Assistant ChiefCounsel for Litigation by memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C. 

### §322(b) and 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.202 (see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant ChiefCounsel for Litigation to the Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memkjkorandum dated August 6, 1993.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-11-00747-CR

Terry Joe NEWMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR4708A

The Honorable Angus McGinty, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 24, 2013.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000883573
<NAME>                         F-1000 FUTURES FUND L.P., SERIES VIII
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   1,849,050
<SECURITIES>                                             6,017,925
<RECEIVABLES>                                              179,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         8,046,757
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,046,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      305,924
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                               7,740,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,046,757
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           621,642
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            84,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            537,072
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               537,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                89.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
Danny Brett BECKNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1005

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Victoria ARROYO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The LANDINGS OF TAMPA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0819

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 4.1.11.1



		

			Exhibit 4.1.11.1

		


		

			 

		




		
			SCHEDULE OF SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO FORM OF SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE DURING AND AFTER 2014
		

		
			In accordance with Instruction 2 to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has omitted filing the following Supplemental Indentures by and between Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. and The Bank  of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. because they are substantially identical in all material respects to the form of Supplemental Indenture filed as Exhibit 4.1.5 to Aqua America, Inc.’s  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			Forty-Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2014




			
	
			
				 2.
			

			
	
			
			Fiftieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2015




			
	
			
				 3.
			

			
	
			
			Fifty-First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2016




			
	
			
				 4.
			

			
	
			
			Fifty-Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 15, 2017




			
	
			
				 5.
			

			
	
			
			Fifty-Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2018




			
	
			
				 6.
			

			
	
			
			Fifty-Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 15, 2018




		
			﻿
(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. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to StemCells, Inc. and will be
retained by StemCells, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
  /s/ Rodney K. B. YoungRodney K. B. YoungChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                   943
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                    0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                      0
<EQUITIES>                                             409
<MORTGAGE>                                               0   
<REAL-ESTATE>                                            0   
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                       1,373    
<CASH>                                                  25
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                      23
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                                   5
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1,781
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                        896
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                     37
<POLICY-OTHER>                                          (3)
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                   40
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 2
<OTHER-SE>                                             752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1,781
<PREMIUMS>                                             139
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                     77
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                      51
<OTHER-INCOME>                                           0
<BENEFITS>                                              95
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                             (1)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                    76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         94
<INCOME-TAX>                                            31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (31)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           1
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            63
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            3
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            3
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       1,025
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                    128
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                      (14)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                      46
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                       197
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                        896
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                 19
        

</TABLE>
Orville LEVINGSTON, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, et al. Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0439

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
August 17, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 17th day of August, 2016.

10-15-00077-CR	WILLIAM RAY PHILLIPS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 19TH DISTRICT COURT OF McLENNAN COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-993-C1 – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 599 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 599

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                  ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2023

Mr. Gomez (for himself, Mrs. Kim of California, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Schiff, 
Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Kamlager-
Dove, Mr. Robert Garcia of California, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. 
  Lee of California, Ms. Porter, Mr. Issa, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. 
 Huffman, Mr. Levin, Mr. Harder of California, Mrs. Steel, Mr. Costa, 
   Mr. Correa, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Kiley, Ms. Jacobs, Mr. 
Takano, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Peters, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Sanchez, 
 and Ms. Chu) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                  ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DOSAN AHN CHANG HO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dosan Ahn 
Chang Ho Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Cory MANS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1787

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4568** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DEANDRE SCOTT ESTELLE, a/k/a Dre , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00020

- JPB

- JES

- 6 )

Submitted : March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN , and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Eric S
. Black , Berkley Springs, W est Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Randolph J
. Bernard , Robert H
. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s , Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deandre Scott Estelle pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute
contr olled substances and was sentenced to 165 months’ imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his
sentence. This c ourt reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. ; see United States v. Lynn , 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2010). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a
senten ce, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (20 12 ) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explai ned the selected sentence. Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this c ourt. See Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Mendoza

- Mendoza , 597 F.3d 212 , 217 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find that Estelle’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Therefore we affirm.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Hendy Riyanto HO and FNU Lily, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73709

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

David M. Haghighi, Attorney, Law Offices of David M. Haghighi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hendy Riyanto Ho and Lily, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, where they filed it more than a year after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where petitioners failed to establish 'materially changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred in its analysis. *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As *556a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Amendment to Rentrak/Graham Employment Agreement

            This  amendment  to the Amended and  Restated  Employment  Agreement
between Rentrak  Corporation and Marty Graham,  dated May 17, 1997 ("Agreement")
is made and entered into as of this 1st day of  September,  2000, by and between
Rentrak  Corporation,  an Oregon  Corporation  ("Employer"),  and  Marty  Graham
("Employee") (the "Amendment").

            Accordingly,  the Agreement is hereby amended by modifying Paragraph
2.01 so it shall hereafter read:

            2.01 Stated  Term.  Employment  commenced on April 15, 1997 and will
            end on  April  15,  2004  (the  "End  Date"),  or  until  Employee's
            employment  under this  Agreement  is  terminated  pursuant  to this
            Section 2 ("Term").

            This  Amendment  is made as of the date above  written  and shall be
effective upon execution by both parties. The remainder of the Agreement remains
in full force and effect without alteration. RENTRAK CORPORATION EMPLOYEE:


By /s/ Ron Berger                                 By /s/ Marty Graham
   -----------------------                           -----------------------
   Ron Berger                                        Marty Graham
   CEO                                               VP Product Development