alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1


                          COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Years Ended December 31, 

                                                                                         1996
                                                                                 Pro
                                                   1998           1997          Forma(1)        Actual
<S>                                               <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Earnings (loss) before fixed charges (2):

     Loss before extraordinary items               ($97.2)       ($112.1)       ($118.3)        ($22.6)

     Income tax benefit                             (35.8)         (43.6)         (50.2)          (4.5)

     Fixed charges                                  275.7          265.2          260.5          260.5
                                                   ------         ------         ------         ------

                                                   $142.7         $109.5          $92.0         $233.4
                                                   ======         ======         ======         ======

Fixed charges (2):

     Interest expense                              $223.6         $227.9         $228.4         $228.4

     Interest expense on notes payable
          to affiliates                              52.1           37.3           32.1           32.1
                                                   ------         ------         ------         ------

                                                   $275.7         $265.2         $260.5         $260.5
                                                   ======         ======         ======         ======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (3)               --             --             --             --

<FN>
_______________________

(1)  Pro forma ratio of earnings to fixed charges information is presented as if
     the Scripps Acquisition (as defined herein) occurred on January 1, 1996.

(2)  For the purpose of  calculating  the ratio of  earnings  to fixed  charges,
     earnings consist of loss before  extraordinary  items,  income tax benefit,
     and fixed charges.  Fixed charges consist of interest  expense and interest
     expense on notes payable to affiliates.

(2)  For the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, earnings,  as defined
     above,  were  inadequate  to cover fixed charges by $133.0  million, $155.7
     million and $27.1 million, respectively. On a pro forma basis, for the year
     ended December 31, 1996,  earnings,  as defined above,  were  inadequate to
     cover fixed charges by $168.5 million.
</FN>
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0036

_________________

WHITEFISH 57 COMMERCIAL, LLC

and RIMROCK COMPANIES, LLC,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

CITY OF WHITEFISH,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Robert B. Allison, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2023

06/28/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0036
Exhibit 32.2
     In connection with the Annual Report of P.F. Chang’s on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Kristina K. Cashman, ChiefFinancial Officer of P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (the “Registrant”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Registrant.    /s/ KRISTINA K. CASHMAN  *Chief Financial Officer*March 15, 2004
Case 3:05-cv-02538-M Document 8 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 67
EXHIBIT 31.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, George A. Powell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pride, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 21, 2005



/s/ George A. Powell
--------------------------------------
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director
Olin GRIMSLEY v. STATE

CR-16-0949

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 897 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 897

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
        of the exclusion for dependent care assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2021

    Ms. Ernst (for herself, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Tillis, and Ms. Sinema) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
        of the exclusion for dependent care assistance programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Child Care for Working 
Families Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION OF EXCLUSION FOR DEPENDENT CARE 
              ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 129(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``$5,000 ($2,500'' and inserting 
``$10,500 (half such dollar amount''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred in calendar years beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENSTOOTH RANCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00006-SI 

JUDGMENT

The Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of defendant and 

against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: January 24, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
Jakita DIAL v. BESSEMER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

2160710

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 6524

JEREMY FONTANEZ
,
Petitioner

- Appellant
,

v.
JOSEPH COAKLEY, Warden
, Respondent

- Appellee

.

No. 17

- 6 664

JEREMY FONTANEZ
,
Petitioner

- Appellant
,

v.
JOSEPH COAKLEY, Warden
, Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
, at Wheeling

. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv

- 00077

- FPS

- MJA )

Submitted : Septe mber 25, 2017 Decided: October 6, 20172 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jeremy Fontanez , Appellant Pro Se. Tara Noel Tighe, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney
, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Fontanez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders granting

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and affirming his r ight to withdraw from
the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program at any time, and denying his motion to
clarify . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

Yinong Chong, Rosemarie Hirsch, 

Cheryl Fryar, and Jennifer Dostal

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA 

NHANES is the only national survey that collects extensive health information from both face-to-face 

interviews and medical examinations. NHANES datasets became publicly available on its website in 

2000, and a growing number of analysts are using the NHANES data to address major public heath issues 

in the U.S. To meet the growing demands of a wide range of data users, a team of content experts, 

instructional designer, and web developer from NCHS and the National Cancer Institute jointly developed 

this web-based tutorial to promote broader and more proficient use of NHANES data. The tutorial 

simulates a real life experience of how to conduct an analytical project from beginning to end, with a stepby-step flow through typical analytic procedures. The data preparation component focuses on navigating 

through the data structure and vast amounts of information, and on identifying and retrieving NHANES 

data files and variables of interest. The analysis component focuses on conducting statistical analyses 

with appropriate attention paid to the nuances of NHANES data, given its complex sample design, 

weighting requirements, and data structure. In addition, annotated SAS and SUDAAN program code and 

analytical guidance are organized and integrated into different modules and tasks to facilitate this learning 

process. The web tutorial has gone through numerous rounds of formal and informal usability testing, 

which greatly enhanced the design features to accommodate different learning styles. The tutorial has 

also been accredited by CDCs online learning system as four stand alone courses, allowing physicians, 

nurses, and epidemiologists to receive continuous education units upon successful completion. This 

basic tutorial will be further expanded to include STAT programs, and modules specific to dietary data and 

historic NHANES datasets.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

 §

v. § Criminal Case No. 3:06-CR-0085-L(01)

 §

VERNON COOKS, JR., a/k/a §

JIBREEL RASHAD, §

ORDER

On May 1, 2019, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 235) was entered, recommending that the court deny without

prejudice Defendant’s motions for relief under the First Step Act (Docs. 231, 233, 234), construe the

motions as requests for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and deny without prejudice the motions as

premature. No objections to the Report were filed.

Having reviewed the motions, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that

the findings and recommendation are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly,

the court construes Defendant’s motions for relief under the First Step Act (Docs. 231, 233, 234)

as requests for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denies without prejudice the motions as

premature. 

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c),

the court denies a certificate of appealability.1

 The court determines that Defendant has failed to

1

 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases provides as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the

Order – Page 1
show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong;” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states

a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this court] was correct

in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this

determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report (Doc. 235) in this case. 

In the event that Defendant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or

submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), unless he has been granted IFP status by the

district court.

It is so ordered this 17th day of July, 2019.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court

issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required

by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but

may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A

motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to

appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district

court issues a certificate of appealability

Order – Page 2
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 Quarterly Report of Valley High Mining Company
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, CEO, President, Chief Financial
Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


Dated: October 26, 2005                   /s/ John Michael Coombs
                                          -------------------------------
                                          John Michael Coombs,
                                          CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of
                                          the Board
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CR-040-D(1)

)

FRANCISCO VILLEGAS-JAIMES, )

#93636-079, )

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the

findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted.

Accordingly, the court construes defendant’s motion requesting credit for time served in state

custody as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and transfers it, in the interest of

justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, to the United States District Court for the Western District of

Texas, Pecos Division, for further proceedings.

The clerk is directed to open for statistical purposes a new habeas corpus case pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (nature of suit 530), directly assigned to Chief Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater and

Magistrate Judge Wm. F. Sanderson, Jr., and close the case on the basis of this order. The clerk is

also directed to terminate for statistical purposes the motion requesting credit for time served in state

 

 Case 3:06-cr-00040-D Document 37 Filed 07/31/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID 123
custody.

SO ORDERED.

July 31, 2009.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

CHIEF JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cr-00040-D Document 37 Filed 07/31/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID 124
Case 3:06-cv-00128-M Document 13 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 57
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

As of December 31, 2003 

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

The following is a list of our subsidiaries (which are also the names under which they do business). The jurisdiction of incorporation of these subsidiaries is Portugalunless otherwise indicated. 

 

EDP - Gestão da Produção deEnergia, S.A. (“EDP Produção”) 

 

CPPE - CompanhiaPortuguesa de Produção de Electricidade, S.A. (“CPPE”) 

 

HDN-Energia do Norte, S.A. (“HDN”) 

 

HIDROCENEL-Energia doCentro, S.A. (“HIDROCENEL”) 

 

REN - Rede Eléctrica Nacional,S.A. (“REN”) 

 

EDP-Distribuição Energia, S.A.(“EDPD”) 

 

Electricidade de Portugal Internacional, S.G.P.S., S.A.(“EDP Internacional”) 

 

EDP Brasil S.A. (incorporated in Brazil)

 

Iven, S.A (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

EBE-Empresa Bandeirante de Energia, S.A. (“Bandeirante”) (incorporated in Brazil)

 

Escelsa – Espirito Santo Centrais Eléctricas S.A.(“Escelsa”) (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

Enersul – EmpresaEnergética do Mato Grasso do Sul S.A. (“Enersul”) (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

Hidrocantábrico – Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico S.A. (“Hidrocantábrico”) (incorporated in Spain) 

 

Hidrocantábrico Distribuición Eléctrica, S.A.U. (incorporated in Spain) 

 

Naturcorp Multiservicios, S.A.U. (“Naturcorp”) (incorporated in Spain) 

 

Sinae Energia y Medioambiente, S.A. (“Sinae”) (incorporated in Spain)

 

EDINFOR - Sistemas Informáticos, S.A. (“EDINFOR”) 

 

ONI SGPS – Sociedade Gestora de Participações (“ONI”)
Daleisha BRADFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4217

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Peter Allen ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D19-1104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 12, 2019

Peter Allen Anderson, Indiantown, pro se.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

*886Due to Petitioner's apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment(s) and sentence(s) in Seminole County Circuit Court Case Number 14-CF-0877-A, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. *See* *State v. Spencer*, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. *See* *Isley v. State*, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Simpkins v. State*, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

FURTHER PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT and SASSO, JJ., concur.