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



Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Nine MonthsEndedSeptember 30,
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Income from Continuing OperationsBefore Taxes
    
    $
    6,551.2
    
    
    $
    6,221.4
    
    
    $
    7,363.9
    
    
    $
    7,974.5
    
    
    $
    9,051.6
    
    
    $
    9,651.7Add (Subtract):One-third of rents
    
    
    49.1
    
    
    
    67.8
    
    
    
    68.2
    
    
    
    71.9
    
    
    
    75.6
    
    
    
    67.2Interest expense, gross
    
    
    297.2
    
    
    
    375.1
    
    
    
    385.5
    
    
    
    293.7
    
    
    
    350.9
    
    
    
    390.6Interest capitalized,
net of amortization
    
    
    27.9
    
    
    
    29.4
    
    
    
    (1.0
    )
    
    
    (21.3
    )
    
    
    (30.1
    )
    
    
    (36.9
    )Equity (income) loss from affiliates,
net of distributions
    
    
    (554.1
    )
    
    
    (362.5
    )
    
    
    (615.9
    )
    
    
    (421.2
    )
    
    
    79.2
    
    
    
    (156.1
    )Preferred stock dividends, net of tax
    
    
    89.8
    
    
    
    120.0
    
    
    
    120.0
    
    
    
    151.0
    
    
    
    150.9
    
    
    
    164.3Earnings from Continuing
Operations
    
    $
    6,461.1
    
    
    $
    6,451.2
    
    
    $
    7,320.7
    
    
    $
    8,048.6
    
    
    $
    9,678.1
    
    
    $
    10,080.8One-third of rents
    
    $
    49.1
    
    
    $
    67.8
    
    
    $
    68.2
    
    
    $
    71.9
    
    
    $
    75.6
    
    
    $
    67.2Interest expense, gross
    
    
    297.2
    
    
    
    375.1
    
    
    
    385.5
    
    
    
    293.7
    
    
    
    350.9
    
    
    
    390.6Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    121.0
    
    
    
    166.0
    
    
    
    166.7
    
    
    
    207.1
    
    
    
    215.6
    
    
    
    234.7Fixed Charges from ContinuingOperations
    
    $
    467.3
    
    
    $
    608.9
    
    
    $
    620.4
    
    
    $
    572.7
    
    
    $
    642.1
    
    
    $
    692.5Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
from Continuing Operations
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    11
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    15
    
    
    
    15
 Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes  an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,
*September 25,*2017

2017-Ohio-7817.]

2017-1341.

#### First Natl. Community Bank v. Garretson Firm Resolution Group.

Hamilton App. No. C-160745, 2017-Ohio-7582. Appellees shall file a response, if any, to appellant’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal and motion for expedited review no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 26, 2017.
#### In the Matter of Elizabeth Maldonado, Respondent, v Andy Reyes, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 908]

—In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated August 1, 2002, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Mayeri, H.E.), dated September 7, 2001.

Ordered that the order dated August 1, 2002, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Barnes v Scott,*283 AD2d 427 [2001]). S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6509** 

STEPHEN L. ROBERTS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. B. WATSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ict of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis , III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 00100

- TSE

- TRJ )

Submitted : July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Stephen L. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen L. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find t hat the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the cou rt and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
CAAP-12-0000903

#### State v. Tuisamatatele

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 32(b)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.Herman F. Dick, Jr.
Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2007
# L_2010335EN.01005801.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 335/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/58

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1224/2010

of 17 December 2010

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2011-31.3.2011
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 09.4410 | 0,412031 |
| 3 | 09.4412 | 0,426075 |
| 4 | 09.4420 | 0,541711 |
| 6 | 09.4422 | 0,558347 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2011-31.3.2011

(%)

1

09.4410

0,412031

3

09.4412

0,426075

4

09.4420

0,541711

6

09.4422

0,558347

---
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From France (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar  | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2018                                                                                                                              |     |     | 8.35 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2019                                                                                                                              | W   |     |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certificationof**

**ChiefFinancial Officer of**

**ChasePackaging Corporation**

**Pursuantto**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and accompanies the annual reporton Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2009, of Chase Packaging Corporation (the “Company”).  I, Ann C. W. Green, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Form 10-K fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| Date: March 30,  2010 | By:    | /s/ Ann C. W. Green                              |
|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Ann C. W. Green                                  |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer  and Assistant Secretary |
|                       |   | (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer)    |

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11467

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20273-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JESUS IZQUIERDO-GARCIA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 29, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-11467 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Jesus Izquierdo-Garcia appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a sentence

reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Izquierdo-Garcia based his motion on

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it denied Izquierdo-Garcia’s motion.

Izquierdo-Garcia, whose sentence is based on the career offender guideline, 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, is ineligible for a 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 

1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327–30 

(11th Cir. 2008). The district court lacked authority to reduce Izquierdo-Garcia’s 

sentence.

We AFFIRM the denial of Izquierdo-Garcia’s motion to reduce his 

sentence.

Case: 15-11467 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 2 of 2
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                         
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Massena, NY Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Massena, NY Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 0      | 472    | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |       
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 341    | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### In the Matter of Rosalie Carnese et al., Respondents, v Arnaldo A. Ferraro et al., Appellants.

[630 NYS2d 584]

—In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to invalidate a petition designating Arnaldo A. Ferraro as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 12, 1995, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the position of Male State Committee Member in the 49th Assembly District, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 9, 1995, as granted that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the petition designating Arnaldo A. Ferraro as a candidate and directed the removal of his name from the ballot.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Board of Elections is directed to place the name of Arnaldo A. Ferraro on the appropriate ballot.

The petitioners were required to file an order to show cause and a petition with the Clerk of the Court to commence this proceeding, and their failure to do so renders this proceeding jurisdictionally defective *(see,*CPLR 304; *Matter of Zicari v*
      *771
      *Stewart,*207 AD2d 951; *Matter of Isabella v Hotaling,*207 AD2d 648).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association *v.*Azman.

2017-Ohio-506.]

(No. 2015-2007

Submitted February 9, 2017

Decided February 14, 2017.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Brandon Louis Azman, Attorney Registration No. 0087246, last known business address in Arlington, Virginia.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 15, 2016, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent for a period of one year, with six months stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

{¶ 5} For earlier ease, see *Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Azman,*147 Ohio St.3d 379, 2016-Ohio-3393, 66 N.E.3d 695.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
#### Ann Jennings-Purnell, M.D., Appellant, v Richard W. Donner, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 98]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered August 12, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment in her favor as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that her son and his friend, Adams, an attorney, caused her to engage in a real estate transaction that resulted in her paying roughly half a million dollars more than she agreed to pay, and that defendant, who was Adams’s associate, notarized four documents at the closing, including the mortgage. More than a year after the closing, plaintiff received *500the closing documents and then alleged that her son’s name had been fraudulently added to the deed and other closing documents without her knowledge or consent. She alleged that defendant committed notarial misconduct under Executive Law § 135.

In opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff admitted that her signatures on the notarized documents were genuine, but claimed that they were not willingly and knowingly made. She also denied that her son had executed and initialed the mortgage. She asserted that defendant “knowingly enabled an unconscionable transaction” and “did more than turn a blind eye to what was evidently going on.”

Defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that he did not commit any notarial misconduct in the performance of his powers, i.e, taking acknowledgments of plaintiff’s and her son’s signatures (Executive Law § 135; *see Bogensky v Rosenberg,*202 Misc 652, 652 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1952]). Plaintiff’s testimony that she remembered signing only two of the four documents is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of due execution *(see Genger v Arie Genger 1995 Life Ins. Trust,*84 AD3d 471, 471-472 [1st Dept 2011]). Her unsupported testimony that her son did not sign or initial the mortgage at the closing is similarly insufficient *(Osborne v Zornberg,*16 AD3d 643, 644 [2d Dept 2005]).

Although plaintiff claimed that the documents did not reflect the terms of her oral agreement, the acknowledgment “is the verification of the fact of execution but not of the contents of the instrument” *(Pittis v Abrams,*129 NYS2d 216, 217 [App Term, 1st Dept 1954]; *see Matter of Bristol v Buck,*201 AD 100 [3d Dept 1922], *affd*234 NY 504 [1922]). New York law does not impose a duty upon a notary public to ascertain whether a signature is “willingly and knowingly” made. Nor did defendant have a duty, as a notary, to halt the closing *(see generally Purdy v Public Adm’r of County of Westchester,*72 NY2d 1, 8 [1988]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Fein-man and Gische, JJ.
Permission to Operate Form

In signing this form, I am giving GravityShots.com, Inc. Permission to operate their aircraft at 

less than 500 feet from property, or in some jurisdiction in which I am responsible for or 

affiliated with, for the purpose of film or television production.

Name:____________________________________________________

Title:_____________________________________________________

Basis of Authority to Grant Permission:

_________________________________________________________

Location:_________________________________________________

Date of Operation:__________________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________________

Date: __________________________

GravityShots.com, Inc. Permission