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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                          Archstone Communities Trust
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                         (Dollar amounts in thousands)

                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Year Ended December 31,
                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2000             1999              1998            1997 (1)            1996
                                          ----------------   --------------   ---------------   ---------------    ----------------
<S>                                        <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>                 <C>
Earnings from operations.................   $      176,466   $      169,339   $       134,571   $        24,686     $        94,089
Add:
  Interest expense.......................          145,173          121,494            83,350            61,153              35,288
                                          ----------------   --------------   ---------------   ---------------     ---------------
Earnings as adjusted.....................   $      321,639   $      290,833   $       217,921   $        85,839     $       129,377
                                          ================   ==============   ===============   ===============     ===============
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense.......................   $      145,173   $      121,494   $        83,350   $        61,153     $        35,288
  Capitalized interest...................           24,317           31,912            29,942            17,606              16,941
                                          ----------------   --------------   ---------------   ---------------     ---------------
     Total fixed charges.................   $      169,490   $      153,406   $       113,292   $        78,759     $        52,229
                                          ================   ==============   ===============   ===============     ===============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.......              1.9              1.9               1.9               1.1                 2.5
                                          ================   ==============   ===============   ===============     ===============
</TABLE>

(1) Earnings from operations for 1997 includes a one-time, non-cash charge of
    $71.7 million associated with costs incurred in acquiring Archstone's REIT
    and property management companies from Security Capital.  Excluding the
    charge, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the year ended December
    31, 1997 would be 2.0.
No. 11-10736.

#### Velasco-Hernandez *v.*Miller-Stout, Superintendent, Airway Heights Correctional Center.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.11 N 77.11 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ● ● ●
Submitted October 10,

appeal dismissed as moot December 7, 2016

#### In the Matter of L. R. F.-M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, *Petitioner-Respondent, and*L. R. F.-M., *Respondent, v.*P. M. M., *Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

2012808441; Petition Number 109425; A162184

389 P3d 1176

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Cecil A. Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent Department of Human Services.

Caitlin Mitchell waived appearance for respondent L. R. F.-M.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

*726PER CURIAM

Mother appeals an order establishing guardianship of her child under ORS 419B.366. After filing her appeal, the trial court granted child’s motion under ORS 419B.923 to set aside the guardianship order. Subsequently, mother filed a notice of probable mootness of mother’s appeal of the guardianship order. Both the Department of Human Services and child agree with mother that, because the trial court set aside the guardianship order, this appeal is moot. *See, e.g., Dept. of Human Services v. J. G.,*239 Or App 261, 264, 244 P3d 385 (2010) (“A case is moot when the court’s decision will not have a practical effect on the parties’ rights.”). We agree with the parties and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed as moot.
#### Jeffrey LUDLOW and Kathelyn Ludlow, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 14-16869, 14-17236

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2018 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed February 26, 2018

Darren Russell, Wailea Law Company, Kihei, HI, Creighton Sebra, Trial Attorney, Morris Polieh & Purdy LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jens Koepke, Shaw Koepke <& Satter, Torrance, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Edmund K. Saffery, Esquire, Scott Kea-la Daezoo Shishido, Attorney, Lynda Lei Arakawa, Esquire, Attorney, Goodsill Anderson Quinn *&*Stifel LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Jeffrey and Kathelyn Ludlow appeal the district court’s rulings denying them damages for loss of use and diminution in value to their home resulting from Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC’s installation of a refrigerator. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm the district court’s decision to deny the Ludlows’ claim for damages resulting from loss of use and diminution in value because the Ludlows failed to present competent evidence to support such damages. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the testimony of the Ludlows’ expert witness, John Ferguson, because the court’s determination that he was not qualified as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was supported by the record. *See Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.,*768 F.3d 843, 860 (9th Cir. 2014). Likewise, the court did not abuse its discretion in striking specified paragraphs from the declaration of the Ludlows’ contractor, Matthew Boone. The paragraphs constituted expert testimony, and the court had previously excluded Boone from testifying as an expert because the Ludlows failed to timely disclose him. Without the excluded testimony of Ferguson and Boone, the Ludlows could not show their damages with “reasonable certainty.” *Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.,*116 Haw. 277, 292, 172 P.3d 1021 (2007); *Uyemura v. Wick,*57 Haw. 102, 111, 551 P.2d 171 (1976) (quoting *Ferreira v. Hono**674*lulu Star-Bulletin, Ltd.,*44 Haw. 567, 576, 356 P.2d 651 (1960)).

AFFIRMED

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### GERMAN AMERICAN CAPITAL CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to Branch Banking and Trust Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean F. MOREHOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2035

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 27, 2018

Decided: March 14, 2018

Neil D. Goldman, GOLDMAN *&*VAN BEEK, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas F. Murphy, FRIEDLAN-DER MISLER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dean F. Morehouse appeals from the district court’s order granting German *287American Capital Corporation’s motion for a charging order against Morehouse’s interest in a Georgia limited liability company and denying Morehouse’s motion to file a supplemental memorandum in opposition. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. *German Am. Capital Corp. v. Morehouse,*No. 8:13-mc-00296-GJH, 2017 WL 3411941 (D. Md. Filed Aug. 4, 2017 & entered Aug. 7, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# C_2023252EN.01004402.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)

(Case T-68/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Joro - Earlier national word mark JOKO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Josef Pichler (San Leonardo in Passiria, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 November 2021 (Case R 2336/2020-1);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
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 Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form
10-K”), I, Stephen P.
Reynolds, the Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)
            The
      Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:  February
      29, 2008/s/Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen
      P. ReynoldsChairman,
      President and Chief Executive
Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8839 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to fund youth workforce investment activities 

for certain local areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2020 

Mr. RUSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to fund youth workforce 

investment activities for certain local areas, 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 ‘‘Jobs Now Youth Em5 ployment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. YOUTH WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—From the amount made available 

8 under subsection (e) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 

9 make allotments to local areas pursuant to subsection (b) 

10 for youth workforce investment activities under section 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8839 IH

1 129 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 

2 U.S.C. 3164). 

3 (b) FORMULA.—The allotment to a local area under 

4 subsection (a) shall be made on the basis of the relative 

5 number of long-term unemployed individuals in each local 

6 area, compared to the total number of long-term unem7 ployed individuals in all local areas. 

8 (c) DATA COLLECTION.—In carrying out subsection 

9 (a), the Secretary shall— 

10 (1) beginning not later than 180 days after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act and annually 

12 thereafter, the Secretary shall collect long-term un13 employment rates for local areas; and 

14 (2) identify local areas that have long-term un15 employment rates above the national average for the 

16 year for which such data is collected. 

17 (d) DEFINITION.—In this section: 

18 (1) LOCAL AREA.—The term ‘‘local area’’ has 

19 the meaning given such term under section 3 of the 

20 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 

21 U.S.C. 3102). 

22 (2) LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT.—The term 

23 ‘‘long-term unemployment’’, used with respect to a 

24 local area, means the number of individuals in such 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8839 IH

1 local area who have been unemployed for 15 weeks 

2 or more. 

3 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

4 the Secretary of Labor. 

5 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

6 authorized to be appropriated to carry out the activities 

7 described in subsection (a) $10,000,000,000 for each year 

8 in the 10-year period beginning on the date that is the 

9 first fiscal year that commences following the existence of 

10 data collected under subsection (c). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-11173 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELLIS ONIC, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-276-P

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ellis Onic appeals his sentence following conviction for making false statements in a loan application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He argues that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level by two levels based on his abuse of a position of trust. We have reviewed Onic’s arguments and the record and find that the district court did not clearly err in imposing the enhancement. See United States v. Brown , 7 F.3d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir. 1993); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.No. 95-11173 -2- AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         133,831
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,020
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    336,800
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        769,326
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (9,374)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,348,446
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,135,903
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,918
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             51,633
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       110,314
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,348,446
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,816
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,605
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   528
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,949
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,037
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,937
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,012
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,102
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 100
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,176
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,176
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,538
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.21
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,234
<LOANS-PAST>                                       360
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 3,083
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,184
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,618
<RECOVERIES>                                       706
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,374
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,374
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            572


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1

EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2015-1, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC,
as Servicer (the Servicer), does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on February 26, 2015 and ending on February 28, 2015 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was
made under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 22nd day of May, 2015.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-420.

#### Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia *v.*Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-629]



[[Page 1487]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33318]


Port of Columbia--Acquisition Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad 
Company

    Port of Columbia (Port) has filed a verified notice of exemption 
under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire approximately 37.4 miles of rail line 
owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) between milepost 48.0 near 
Walla Walla, WA, and milepost 71.3 at Bolles, WA, and between milepost 
0.0 at Bolles, WA, and milepost 14.06 at Dayton, WA.<SUP>1 Consummation 
was expected to occur on or shortly after December 19, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Blue Mountain Railroad, Inc. (BMR) currently operates over 
the line pursuant to a lease agreement that was the subject of a 
notice of exemption in Finance Docket No. 32193. The agreement 
between UP and the Port is subject to that lease agreement and BMR 
will continue to operate the line after this transaction is 
consummated under an assignment of the lease from UP to the Port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33318, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423 and served on: Karl Morell, Ball 
Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, N.W., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.

    Decided: January 6, 1997.

    By the board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-629 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P