alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-12
                              RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                   FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                    DECEMBER 28, 2001                  DECEMBER 29, 2000                  DECEMBER 31, 1999
                           ---------------------------------    --------------------------------   ---------------------------------
                            MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                              PREFERRED         PREFERRED          PREFERRED        PREFERRED         PREFERRED        PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST I   FUNDING I, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST I  FUNDING I, L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST I   FUNDING I, L.P.
                           ---------------   ---------------    ---------------  ---------------   ---------------   ---------------

<S>                             <C>                <C>            <C>              <C>               <C>              <C>

Earnings                          $ 21,972          $ 25,745           $ 21,972         $ 25,781          $ 21,972          $ 25,745
                                  ========          ========           ========         ========          ========          ========


Fixed charges                     $      -          $      -           $      -         $      -          $      -          $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution requirements          21,313            21,972             21,313           21,972            21,313            21,972
                                  --------          --------           --------         --------          --------          --------

Total combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements        $ 21,313          $ 21,972           $ 21,313         $ 21,972          $ 21,313          $ 21,972
                                  ========          ========           ========         ========          ========          ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
 fixed charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                         1.03              1.17               1.03             1.17              1.03              1.17



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Curtis Littlejohn, Appellant, v New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 775]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 11, 2016 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

On February 19, 2015, petitioner’s application for participation in a shock incarceration program was denied. Thereafter, petitioner attempted to administratively appeal that determination, but was subsequently informed on March 17, 2015 that no administrative appeal process exists for the denial of shock incarceration participation. Thereafter, in May 2015, petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding by order to show cause filed in Dutchess County challenging the determination. Supreme Court (Sproat, J.) granted respondent’s motion to dismiss that proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding by petition filed September 23, 2015, which was subsequently amended, upon consent of respondent. Supreme Court (Feld-stein, J.) granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the amended petition as time-barred, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record demonstrates that petitioner, who was aware in March 2015 that his application to participate in the shock incarceration program was denied, did not commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding within the applicable four-month statutory time period (see CPLR 217 [1]; *Matter of Robinson v Foreman,*98 AD3d 765, 766 [2012]). Although petitioner timely filed a petition by order to show cause in Dutchess County, that proceeding was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and, thus, the tolling provisions of CPLR 205 (a) are inapplicable. In view of the foregoing, Supreme Court properly dismissed the amended petition as untimely.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
SERVED SEPTEMBE RI , 2 0 

### OFFy\RT?^^EN TO F n^ANSPORTATIO N -GCKE r OPERATION

S 2 mSE P - 2 A q : 3 8

u s DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH E MATTE

RO F T H E MAGN I GROUP , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . CPIOSOOOI O (Civi l PciKill y Action ) DMSFAA-2010-I0«

U ORDE R O F DISMISSA L On Novembe r

23 . 2010 , th e Fedeni l Aviatio n Adminislralio n ("Complainiinl" ) filedaConiplainl . Responden t Magni Industries , Uic . ("Respondent" ) hado n Novembe r 15 , 201 0 file daReques t

fo r Hearing . On Augus t

31 , 2011 , Complainan t

filedaMotio n to Withdra w it s Complaint , citin g settlemen t

o f th e matter . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 states : "At any tim e before o r

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y ' attorne y may withdra w acomplain t o r part y ma y withdraw- areques t

for.ajiearin g withou t th e consen t

o f th e administrativ e la

w judge . I

f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t

o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t

fo r ahearin g andth e answer , th e administrativ e law judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s under thi s subpar t wit hprejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n filedMotio n t o Withdraw Complain t havin g bee n rea

d an dconsidered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : Complainant' s Motio n t o Withdra w Complain t i s hereb y granted ; an d2 2 . Thi s pi-Qceedin

g l) c an di s hcrcli y dismisse dwJL hprejudice . S O ORDERED .

RichardC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CPIOSOOOI O (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON E COP Y Tod dR . Palmer , Genera l Manage r Magn i Industries , Inc. , Responden t 10925 0 Toebbe n Driv e Independenc e Avenue , K Y 4105 1 TEL : 859-746-177 7 FAX : 859-746-117 0 Geral dA . Ellis , ComplainaiU' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Souther n Region , ASO- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-51-2 1 Lega l Assistant . -FAX:-"202-3'66-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r seh-'ic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier , use Ui

e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Adininislralion , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2Wt000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Anenlion : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
#### Lisa W., Matter of, v John M.

1st Dept: 142 AD3d 879

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
#### Com. v. Miszler

10/29/2015

259 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1052
|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Croatia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Croatia (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 30.16  | 11.85  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
# The haunting of the historic Bellwood Manor House on DSCR takes center stage on Halloween

/ Published Nov. 1, 2019
RICHMOND, VA, 
The Bellwood manor House on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia is one of the oldest houses in Chesterfield County. It’s also known as the home to all sorts of ghosts and goblins.

On Halloween Day, a crowd of roughly 150 filled the old Center café on DSCR got to experience first- hand for themselves during a special viewing of the Bellwood episode of The Twisted Realm series in the old center Café.

In the fall of 2017, a film crew from the Fishersville, Virginia based Twisted Paranormal Society spent a couple of days and nights inside the house, as well as other historical areas on DSCR and got to experience this phenonium first-hand. They also interviewed people who work on DSCR who say they have personally experienced eerie, out of the normal activities inside the Bellwood Manor House and on Center.

Lyle Lotts with the Twisted Paranormal Society said the Bellwood episode kicks off season two of The Twisted Realm series.

The Bellwood Manor House was built between 1797 and 1804 and is listed as a national, state and county landmark. It was added to the federal National Register of Historic Places in 1978.
Statement ofSeth Heald, Rixeyville, Virginia Seth.Heald@gmail.com 540-937-3404 Hearing on EPA Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units Washington, DC May 24,2012
I am here todayto voice my strong support for the EPA's proposed new greenhouse-gas standards for electric-generatingunits. In recent years as I have learned more about climate change and the carbon-dioxide emissions that cause it, I have grown increasingly concerned at ournation's lack ofmeaningful effort to reduce carbon emissions. We have known for decades that we needto move away from carbon-intensive fuels, but business and government have not done nearly enoughto deal with this. The EPA is chargedwith protectingAmericans from pollution that adversely affects our health. The vastmajority ofAmericans supportthis mission. Carbonpollution is a seriousthreat to Americans' health and welfare, andthe proposed greenhouse-gas standards are a small but important steptowards the goal ofprotectingus from climate disruption. The proposed standards are actually quite modest, and quite overdue. They will not affect coal-burningpowerplants that are already in service or under construction. The standards simply acknowledge the scientific reality that our nation cannot afford to build any new coal-fired powerplants unless and until the electric-power industry comes up with a workable method of capturing and sequestering carbon emissions.
I am a member/owner ofthe RappahannockElectric Cooperative in Virginia, which in tum is a member/owner ofthe OldDominion Electric Cooperative, or ODEC. As an active cooperative member I have taken seriously my role as both an electricity consumer and a utility owner. I have sharplyreduced my electricity consumption through conservation and efficiency measures, while also installing solarpanels to provide almost all ofthe power I do need. ODEC's managementunfortunatelypersists with an ill-advisedplanto build ahuge new coal plant in Virginianotwithstanding strong opposition throughoutthe state and strong scientific evidence that coal burning is a leading cause ofclimate change. Yet ODEC engages in

8515218.1only the most modest and superficial efforts to invest in efficiency or carbon-free renewable energy sources. We can and must do better, for the sake ofourselves, our children, and generations to follow.
The coal industry and some short-sighted utilities are spending large sums to challenge the proposedgreenhouse-gas standards. They claim that coal is "clean," while ignoring the fact that coal plays a major role in changing the earth's climate. Those changes will last for thousands ofyears. Americans cannot afford to ignore coal's role in climate disruption. The EPA's proposed standards are sound, science-based measures to protect Americans. I commendthe EPA for proposing these standards and urge that they be implemented as soon as possible.

8515218.1
#### In the Matter of Peter W. Kenny, an Attorney.

[54 NYS3d 462]

Per Curiam.

Peter W. Kenny was admitted to practice by this Court in 1982 and lists a business address in Shrewsbury, New Jersey with the Office of Court Administration. Kenny now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department advises that it does not oppose Kenny’s application.

Upon reading the affidavit of Kenny sworn to November 8, 2016, and upon reading the correspondence in response by the Chief Attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that Kenny is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation.

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that Peter W. Kenny’s application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted; and it is further ordered that Peter W. Kenny’s name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court *(see generally*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [b]); and it is further ordered that, effective immediately, Peter W. Kenny is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in *1534any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and Kenny is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further ordered that Peter W. Kenny shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30521-30522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14777]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


NRC Incident Response Function Self-Assessment; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The NRC staff will solicit public comment regarding the 
Incident Response Function and suggestions for initiatives that will 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Incident Response 
Function.

DATES: June 16, 1998.

TIME: 1 pm-5 pm.

ADDRESSES: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland 20852. Room T-9A1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart Rubin, Office for Analysis and 
Evaluation of Operational Data, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555, Telephone (301) 415-7477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1995, the NRC conducted a review of NRC's 
major regulatory functions to identify potential candidate programs for 
improved efficiency. The review was conducted in connection with the 
National Performance Review for Reinventing Government (NPR). In all, 
seven programs were recommended in NRC's NPR task force report, SECY-
95-154, as warranting further detailed review for efficiency 
improvement. One of the programs identified was the Incident Response 
Program. The Commission responded that the identified programs should 
be considered as part of the NRC's Strategic Assessment and 
Rebaselining Initiative. The specific efficiencies identified in SECY-
95-154 for the Incident Response Program were considered by the staff 
and either were implemented or are in the process of being implemented, 
as appropriate.
    In assessing the NRC's Incident Response Function, the NRC's 
Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative, the ``related 
strategic issues'' that will be considered by the Self Assessment are: 
(1) What measures should NRC take to maintain a sufficient planning and 
response capability for the Nuclear Industry, State and local 
authorities, and the Federal Government in the face of growing economic 
pressure and improving safety performance? (2) Is the degree of NRC 
incident response capability for materials and fuel facility 
emergencies consistent with the risk associated with the activities?
    The overall goal and primary focus of the Incident Response 
Function Self-

[[Page 30522]]

Assessment is to identify initiatives that will improve the efficiency 
and effectiveness of the Incident Response Function. The purpose of 
this meeting is to solicit public comment and input on this subject.
    The meeting will be an open forum following a brief introduction by 
NRC staff. Registration will be conducted before the meeting.

    Dated at Rockville, Md., this 28th day of May, 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas T. Martin,
Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data.
[FR Doc. 98-14777 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Gerard Gomez, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[769 NYS2d 408]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered June 12, 2002, as, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $450,000 for future pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provisions thereof awarding the plaintiff the sum of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $450,000 for future pain and suffering, and granting a new trial with respect thereto, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, the plaintiff shall file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the award for past pain and suffering to the sum of $200,000 and for future pain and suffering to the sum of $100,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the awards for past and future pain and suffering deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation to the extent indicated *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]; *Gomez v City of New York,*260 AD2d 598 [1999]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
No. 12-904.

#### Soriano *v.*Neshoba County General Hospital Board of Trustees et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

600 1100 1600 2100 2600 3100 3600 Absorbance

1/cm 

# Zinc trans

- cinnamate