alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12(b)


                   Elizabethtown Water Company & Subsidiary
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                           and Preferred Dividends

                        1995        1994        1993        1992        1991

                      ________    ________    ________    ________    ________
EARNINGS:
Income before
 preferred stock
 dividends          $17,325,144 $14,223,142 $14,832,519 $12,149,343 $11,361,063
Federal income taxes  9,161,510   7,413,995   7,916,794   6,021,464   5,630,265
Interest charges     11,114,496  10,402,060  11,437,710  10,623,801  11,016,414

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
Earnings available
 to cover fixed
 charges            $37,601,150 $32,039,197 $34,187,023 $28,794,608 $28,007,742

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

FIXED CHARGES AND
 PREFERRED DIVIDENDS:
Interest on long
 term debt           10,892,129  10,774,008  11,527,301  10,516,521  10,585,336
Preferred dividend
 requirement (1)      1,242,929   1,299,326   1,610,429   1,570,446   1,570,446
Other interest        2,343,903     175,507      77,921     514,122     535,834
Amortization of debt
 discount - net         323,557     319,646     224,383     209,631     287,180

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

Total fixed charges $14,802,518 $12,568,487 $13,440,034 $12,810,720 $12,978,796

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

Ratio of Earnings to
 Fixed Charges and
 Preferred Dividends       2.54        2.55        2.54        2.25        2.16

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

(1) Preferred Dividend
    Requirement:
Preferred dividends    $813,000    $854,047  $1,050,000  $1,050,000  $1,050,000
Effective tax rate        34.59%      34.27%      34.80%      33.14%      33.14%

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
Preferred dividend
   requirement       $1,242,929  $1,299,326  $1,610,429  $1,570,446  $1,570,446

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

                    ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________


Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends represents the sum of








Income Before Preferred Stock Dividends, Federal income taxes and Interest
Charges (which is reduced by Capitalized interest), divided by Fixed Charges.
Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends consist of interest on long and short-term
debt (which is not reduced by capitalized interest), dividends on Preferred
Stock on a pre-tax basis and Amortization of debt discount.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1497. IN RE ESTATE OF LEONA DOBOS-ZYWICS.

The Probate Court of Bartow County entered an order finding that heir Joseph

Zywics and his attorney had defrauded the estate of Leona Dobos-Zywicsin violation

of a consent order. The court set aside multiple deeds, ordered repayment of certain

funds, and found that Zywics was disinherited. Zywics filed notices of appeal to this

Court and to the superior court. Appellee Lisa Ann Noel hasfiled a motion to dismiss. 

As a threshold matter, we note that an order of the Probate Court of Bartow

County may be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals.

1 However, the order must

be final. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) (appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court

below”);OCGA § 15-9-123 (a) (the provisions of Chapter 6 of Title 5 apply to

probate appeals). Here, the trial court’s order expressly reserved issues pertaining to

attorney fees and punitive damages. The action thus remains pending below, and

Zywics wasrequired to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining

a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to obtain review of the order

1 Under OCGA § 15-9-123 (a), a party in a civil case in probate courtshall have

the right of appeal to an appellate court without firstseeking review in superior court. 

See Ellis v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 127, 128 n.1 (728 SE2d 200) (2012). A probate court

is defined as “a probate court of a county having a population of more than 90,000

persons according to the United States decennial census of 2010 or any future such

census.” OCGA § 15-9-120 (2). As of the 2010 census, Bartow County had a

population of 100,157.

March 16, 2020
he seeks to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); In re Estate of Sims, 246 Ga. App. 451,

452 (540 SE2d 650) (2000). 

Zywics’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives

us of jurisdiction over this premature direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion to

dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See id. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/16/2020
No. 10-7348.

#### Victor Lorenzana, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1124, 131 S. Ct. 837,

178 L. Ed. 2d 580,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9732.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 13.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0176 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 066 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 0052 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


        We hereby  consent to the use of our report  dated  January  31, 1996 in
this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  relating  to  the  Consolidated  Financial
Statements of F&M National  Corporation and  Subsidiaries,  appearing under Item
8., Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, including,  without limitation,
the  incorporation  by reference in the  Prospectuses  constituting  part of the
Registration  Statements on Form S-8  (#2-77374  and  #33-47685) of F&M National
Corporation.



                                                     /s/
                                                     YOUNT, HYDE & BARBOUR, P.C.


March 22, 1996
Winchester, Virginia
538 P.2d 1168

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Linda Charlene FREEMAN, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 623.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Aug. 11, 1975.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III, and John Pressley Todd, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

O’Meara, Michela & Brogna by Carmine A. Brogna, Tucson, for appellant.

*368OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to four concurrent terms in the Arizona State Prison for her conviction on charges of armed burglary, armed robbery, armed kidnapping and lewd and lascivious conduct. The most severe term of the four was 25 to 30 years for armed kidnapping. The two points raised on appeal are without merit and we affirm.

The situation involved herein centers on an evening of sexual abuse and violence, culminating in the knife-point abduction of a Tucson woman.

Appellant’s first point is that it was error for the prosecutor on cross-examination to ask the appellant if she had been willing to take a polygraph examination during her interrogation by police officers. Under *State v. Valdez,*91 Ariz. 274, 371 P.2d 894 (1962), and its successors, it is error, absent stipulation of the parties, to refer at trial to polygraph examinations. However, where the comment on the examination does not prejudice the defendant, there is no reversible error. *State v. Gandara,*111 Ariz. 80, 523 P.2d 511 (1974) ; *State v. Bowen,*104 Ariz. 138, 449 P.2d 603 (1969). We cannot see where the appellant was prejudiced by the reference to the test. If anything, her credibility was strengthened due to the fact that she displayed confidence in her story of the occurrence in stating her willingness to take a polygraph examination. As such, the error, while present, was not such as would require a reversal.

The second point raised was1 whether the appellant was properly precluded from presenting testimony as to the chastity and reputation of the woman who was the victim of the armed kidnapping. The appellant was originally charged with armed rape, in addition to the other four charges. That count was dismissed and at that time, the trial court indicated that any evidence relating to the chastity of the alleged victim should not be presented by the appellant. She claims that since testimony was elicited regarding the alleged rape, she should have been allowed to present the reputation evidence.

The fact that lewd and lascivious acts took place is all that must be established for a conviction of that offense and unchaste reputation of the victim is of no importance. *State v. Mortimer,*105 Ariz. 472, 467 P.2d 60 (1970). An unchaste reputation is not relevant to an armed kidnapping charge, nor is it relevant to an armed robbery charge. We can see no prejudice to the appellant in not being able to present the reputation evidence.

Affirmed.

HOWARD, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-294-000]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

July 6, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1998, Northern Border Pipeline Company 
(Northern Border) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
August 1, 1998.

First Revised Sheet Number 236A
Second Revised Sheet Number 274
Third Revised Sheet Number 304F

    Northern Border states that this filing is made in compliance with 
Order No. 587-G, issued in Docket No. RM96-1-007 on April 16, 1998. 
These tariff sheets reflect the GISB standards adopted in Order No. 
587-G as well as Commission mandated standards governing the provision 
of information on Northern Border's web site.
    Northern Border states that copies of this filing are being served 
on all affected customers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18344 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**CH 2**

**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.40. APPENDIX 8.40**

**AUTOMATIC RETURN NOTIFICATION(MATERIEL RETURNS PROGRAM)**

AP3.40-2

2

APPENDIX 3.40

AP8.40-1

APPENDIX 8.40
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report, dated January 19, 1998, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements (as amended, as applicable) File Numbers 33-4041, 33-9570, 33-12119,
33-15680, 33-37827, 33-56762, 33-65123, 33-83402, 333-07413, 333-10919, and
333-10965.


                                                       /S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Diego, California
June 10, 1998
# Office space

# BSL LOCATIONS
## Workbook Contents

**Product Supplied for Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products**

Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data **Worksheet Name Description**  **Data 1** Product Supplied for Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

Release Date: 9/27/2013 Next Release Date:9/26/2014

Excel File Name: pet_cons_psup_a_ep00_vpp_mbbl_a.xls Available from Web Page:http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_a_ep00_vpp_mbbl_a.htm Source: Energy Information Administration For Help, Contact: infoctr@eia.gov (202) 586-8800**# Of Series Frequency** **Latest Data for**

6Annual2012 6/30/1981

12/24/2013 3:43:07 PMBack to Contents

### Data 1: Product Supplied for Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

**Sourcekey**MTTUPUS1 MTTUPP11 MTTUPP21

**Date U.S. Product** 

**Supplied of Crude Oil and Petroleum**  **Products (Thousand Barrels)**  **East Coast (PA DD 1)**  **Product Supplied of Crude Oil and**  **Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)** **Midwest (PA DD 2)**  **Product Supplied of Crude Oil and**  **Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)**  1981 5861058 1916204 1557772 1982 5582938 1803779 1501875 1983 5559364 1775346 1490800 1984 5755575 1782750 1547238 1985 5740143 1750617 1549578 1986 5942429 1891814 1514908 1987 6082742 1932706 1493510 1988 6325692 1993435 1558822 1989 6323681 1988200 1556967 1990 6200801 1866277 1544887 1991 6100550 1776364 1523561 1992 6234025 1822417 1592780 1993 6291407 1836409 1655292 1994 6467128 1872129 1695214 1995 6469475 1935733 1694699 1996 6701059 2011956 1732219 1997 6796411 2024716 1761241 1998 6904756 2092561 1759457 1999 7124558 2123452 1823251 2000 7210594 2147866 1819350 2001 7171777 2159189 1793410 2002 7212876 2142315 1821004 2003 7312229 2282390 1837527 2004 7587601 2355353 1893941 2005 7592789 2389101 1928904 2006 7550908 2276240 1903082 2007 7548338 2283295 1872023 2008 7136255 2141967 1821601 2009 6851561 2047766 1745545 2010 7000746 2048003 1779973 2011 6891956 1988860 1747485 2012 6767418 1909011 1757194

### Data 1: Product Supplied for Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

MTTUPP31 MTTUPP41 MTTUPP51

**Gulf Coast (PA DD 3)**  **Product Supplied of Crude Oil and**  **Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)** **Rocky M ountain**  **(PA DD 4) Product**  **Supplied of Crude Oil and Petroleum**  **Products (Thousand Barrels)**  **West Coast (PA DD 5)**  **Product Supplied of Crude Oil and**  **Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)**  1308909 198394 879780 1251698 190793 834792 1262297 185148 845773 1356347 187583 881659 1350666 189403 899626 1406849 188636 940221 1507434 187201 961892 1571367 192289 1008776 1590312 193913 994289 1598840 193821 996977 1622250 200632 977743 1651813 201090 965791 1628838 207917 962951 1711765 206163 981858 1650174 210474 978396 1726823 214207 1015854 1782812 216219 1011423 1792598 213404 1046736 1904254 229418 1044183 1935339 239743 1068296 1894004 233307 1091867 1897215 236533 1115808 1840054 239502 1112756 1953129 251235 1133943 1885891 234709 1154183 1953171 246789 1171625 1963566 248798 1180657 1806972 246985 1118731 1784953 234910 1038387 1869294 243896 1059580 1872028 248438 1035146 1841613 252667 1006933
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Thomas L. Monahan IIIThomas L. Monahan IIIChairman of the Board of Directors and
Chief Executive Officer August 10, 2009 /s/ Richard S. LindahlRichard S. LindahlChief Financial Officer August 10, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned,Elie S. Akilian, the President and Chief Executive Officer of InetTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the aforementioned Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

 

 
| /s/ Elie S. Akilian                    |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                                   |
| April 21, 2004                    |

 

----
No. 10-10691.

#### Michael Scott Ponce, Petitioner v. H. A. Rios, Jr., Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 844, 132 S. Ct. 159,

181 L. Ed. 2d 74,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6024.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-10837.

#### Alfred Brooks, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 852, 132 S. Ct. 179,

181 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5996.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 476.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, DC  20301-3000

           LOGISTICS AND

    MATERIEL READINESS 

DLM 4000.25-4, May 4, 2018

Change 4

DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM

CHANGE 4

I.  This change to DLM 4000.25-4, Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS), June 5, 2012, is published by direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration under the authority of DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4140.01, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy,” December 14, 2011.  Unless otherwise noted, revised text in the manual is identified by***bold, italicized***print.  Exceptions are when an entire chapter or appendix is replaced, a new one added, or an administrative update is made.  Administrative updates in Change 4 include the following: "DLA Transaction Services" is changed to "Defense Automatic Addressing System (DAAS)" to reflect the most recent name change in accordance with DLA General Order 12-17.  Abbreviations such as etc., e.g., and i.e. are incorporated inside the parentheses.  Occurrences of “shall” are changed to “will” per a style change for DoD issuances.  In addition, minor typographical and similar editing errors in previous versions have been corrected.

II. This change includes Approved Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Changes (ADC) published by Enterprise Business Standards Office memorandum:

A.   ADC 1151 dated September 14, 2017.  Updates the Defense Logistics Manual (DLM) 4000.25 series of manuals to remove references to specific record retention periods for documents/transactions, and advises the Components to retain data created as a result of DLMS business processes in accordance with the DODI 5015.02, DOD Records Management Program.   Revises Chapter 2, Chapter 5, Appendix AP1, and Appendix AP3.  

III.  The list below identifies the chapters, appendices, or other files from the manual that are updated by this change:

IV.  This change is incorporated into the on-line DLM 4000.25 series of manuals and the PDF files containing the entire set of change files on the publications page of the Defense Logistics Managements Standards Website: www.dla.mil/does/dlms-pubs

# image1.png

# image2.png
No. 10-10846.

#### Christopher J. Hightower, Petitioner v. Bradley L. Coleman, et al.

565 U.S. 852, 132 S. Ct. 179,

181 L. Ed. 2d 90,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6313.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 401 Ill. App. 3d 1158, 371 Ill. Dec. 296, 989 N.E.2d 1224.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**

 
| **Name of subsidiary**       | ** ** | **Location**           |
|----------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|
| DYNAenergetics Canada Inc              |       | Alberta, Canada        |
| DYNAenergetics Beteiligungs GmbH       |       | Burbach, Germany       |
| DYNAenergetics GmbH & Co KG   |       | Burbach, Germany       |
| DYNAenergetics Holding GmbH            |       | Burbach, Germany       |
| DYNAenergetics NA, LLC                 |       | Colorado, USA          |
| DYNAenergetics RUS                     |       | Moscow, Russia         |
| DYNAenergetics US, Inc            |       | Texas, USA             |
| Dynamic Materials Luxembourg 1 S.a r.L |       | Luxembourg, Luxembourg |
| Dynamic Materials Luxembourg 2 S.a r.L |       | Luxembourg, Luxembourg |
| Dynaplat   GmbH & Co KG       |       | Burbach,   Germany     |
| Dynaplat   Holdings GmbH               |       | Burbach,   Germany     |
| Nitro Metall Aktiebolag                |       | Likenas, Sweden        |
| Nobelclad Europe S.A.                  |       | Rivesaltes, France     |
| Perfoline                              |       | Tyumen, Russia         |

 

1

----
No. 10-10696.

#### Tommy Span, Petitioner v. Gary S. Barders, et al.

565 U.S. 844, 132 S. Ct. 160,

181 L. Ed. 2d 75,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6030,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.