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

 

**COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

Thefollowing table sets forth the ratio of earnings to fixed charges for theCompany for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 computed by dividing netfixed charges (interest expense on all debt plus the interest element ofoperating leases) into earnings (income before income taxes and fixed charges)on a historical

 

 

 
|                                                           |   | **Historical**                  |    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|---------|
|                                                           |   | **(Amounts  in EURO millions)** |    |
| Net loss                                                       |   | (89.9                           | )       |
| Discontinuing operations                                       |   | —                          |    |
| Minority interest                                              |   | 11.1                            |    |
| Losses on equity investees                                     |   | 12.6                            |    |
| Income tax expense                                             |   | 34.8                            |    |
| Interest charges, including amortization of debt issuance cost |   | 150.8                           |    |
| Interest portion of rental expense                             |   | 2.9                             |    |
|                                                           |   |                            |    |
| Earnings (losses) available to cover fixed charges             |   | 122.3                           |    |
|                                                           |   |                            |    |
| Fixed charges                                                  |   |                            |    |
| Interest charges, including amortization of debt issuance cost |   | 150.8                           |    |
| Interest portion of rental expense                             |   | 2.9                             |    |
|                                                           |   |                            |    |
| Total fixed charges                                            |   | 153.7                           |    |
|                                                           |   |                            |    |
| Deficiency in earnings to cover fixed charges                  |   | (31.4                           | )  |
|                                                           |   |                            |    |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                             |   | 0.796                           |    |

 

 

----
1The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation. 

2The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3260

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

* Appeal from the United States

 Appellee, * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri. 

 vs. * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

ODIES M. COLE, JR., *

*

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2001

Filed: June 1, 2001

___________

Before M. ARNOLD and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY,1 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Odies M. Cole, Jr. (Cole) appeals the district court’s2 admission of his

confession and a statement by the victim into evidence. Cole also claims that the

government produced insufficient evidence to support the verdict. In a separate pro se
-2-

brief, Cole makes several additional allegations, which include grand juror misconduct,

a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the commerce clause, and ineffective assistance of

counsel.

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048, 1054 (8th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, Cole’s

conviction must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

See United States v. Sandifer, 188 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1999) (the evidence is to be

viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the verdict the benefit of all

reasonable inferences, and reversing only if the jury must have had a reasonable doubt

concerning one of the essential elements of the crime.) Having carefully reviewed the

record, we conclude that the district court’s admission of the confession and statement

of the victim into evidence was not an abuse of discretion. We also conclude that

substantial evidence did exist to support the conviction.

As for the separate pro se brief, we conclude that Cole’s ineffective assistance

of counsel claims should be presented in a 28 U.S.C.§ 2255 proceeding. See United

States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995). The remaining claims of Cole’s pro

se brief are dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, without further discussion, we affirm

Cole’s conviction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gene Austin, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Convio, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Convio, Inc.





Date:May 13, 2011/s/ GENE AUSTINGene AustinPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)





I, James R. Offerdahl, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Convio, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Convio, Inc.





Date:May 13, 2011/s/ JAMES R. OFFERDAHLJames R. OfferdahlChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Administration (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Convio, Inc. and will be retained by Convio, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29294-29295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13461]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board; Meeting

ACTION: Notice.

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

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee meeting:

    Date of Meeting: June 13, 2001 from 0830 to 1710.
    Place: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), 
4301 Wilson Boulevard, Conference Center Room 1, Arlington, VA 22203
    Matters To Be Considered: Research and Development proposals and 
continuing projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and 
Development Program funds in excess of one million dollars will be 
reviewed.
    This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may 
attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific 
Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.
    For Further Information Contact: Ms. Veronica Rice, SERDP 
Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or 
by telephone at (703) 696-2119.


[[Page 29295]]


    Dated: May 10, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-13461 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
# C_2017347EN.01004501.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/45

---

Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)

(Case T-565/17)

(2017/C 347/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Momondo Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cheapflights’ — Application for registration No 3 485 349

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1893/2011-G

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Momondo Group Limited, if it should intervene in these proceedings to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Momondo Group Limited, if it should intervene in these proceedings to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64(6) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96;

| — | The contested decision is replete with statements which question or directly negate the validity of the Applicant’s trademarks. The contested decision is detrimental to the interests of the Applicant as proprietor of validly registered trade mark which are not even subject to the jurisdiction of the Defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision is replete with statements which question or directly negate the validity of the Applicant’s trademarks. The contested decision is detrimental to the interests of the Applicant as proprietor of validly registered trade mark which are not even subject to the jurisdiction of the Defendant.

---
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Speedemissions, Inc.

1015 Tyrone Road, Suite 220

Tyrone, Georgia 30290

We consent to the use of our report dated
March 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Speedemissions, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders
equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which are included in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|                               
|/s/ Tauber & Balser, P.C.      
|Tauber & Balser, P.C.          
|Atlanta, Georgia March 31,
2008
| 1. | The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                     |   |                                                                  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: September 14, 2011 | By:    | /s/ ANDREW AIRD                                                       |   |
|                     |   | Andrew Aird,                                                          |   |
|                     |   | President, Secretary Treasurer,                                       |   |
|                     |   | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director |   |
#### Elm Sea Realty Corp., Respondent, v Emily Chicoy et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided May 4, 2010

*855Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
EXHIBIT 99.1

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

Officers Certificate

March 9, 2010

MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC. North
Tower, 7th Floor 4 World Financial Center New York, New York 10080

PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUS
TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Maryann Joseph,
Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation (the Trustee), hereby
certifies in such capacity that, based on her knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in all
material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the
Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the Depositor) and the Trustee, as successor to United
States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the Securities
Intermediary), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, the
Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for each trust series listed in the attached
schedule.

| | Very truly yours,                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                 
| | The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly

        The Bank of New York), as Trustee
| |                                                                                 
| | By: /s/ Maryann Joseph                                                          
| | Name: Maryann Joseph
      Title: Vice President                                



| |  | 
| |  | 

---

SCHEDULE

INDEXPLUS Trust Series 2003-1 
  PPLUS
Trust Series CMT-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series CSF-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series
DCNA-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series FMC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series GSG-2 
  PPLUS Trust Series
JPM-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series LMG-3 

  PPLUS Trust Series SPR-1 
  PPLUS
Trust Series TWC-1 
  PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1

  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1

  PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series FAR-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1


  PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series LMG-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2 
  PreferredPLUS Trust
Series UPC-1 
  PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1

| |  | 
| |  | 

---
#### In the Matter of Javares Batts, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 334]-

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit smuggling and possession of a controlled substance after a search of his cell disclosed a green leafy substance that later tested positive for marihuana. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and a penalty was imposed. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge respondent’s determination.

The misbehavior report, together with the contraband receipt and the hearing testimony, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Pulliam v Goord,*45 AD3d 1158, 1158 [2007]; *Matter of Rios v Selsky,*32 AD3d 632, 633 [2006]). To the extent that petitioner contended that the drugs were not his and had been planted by facility personnel, his assertions presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Yancey v Conway,*46 AD3d 1042 [2007]; *Matter of Diaz v Goord,*26 AD3d 561, 562 [2006]). In light of the hearing *1130testimony and contraband receipt, which established that the cell was searched and free of contraband prior to petitioner’s entry, the failure to record the search in the relevant log book does not warrant annulment *(see Matter of Chapman v Goord,*49 AD3d 944, 945 [2008]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion that his administrative appeal was not decided in a timely fashion, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Kane, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

# DATE AND TIME:

Friday, June 8, 2001, 9:30 a.m.

# PLACE:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

# STATUS:

 

## Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Approval of Minutes of May 4, 2001 Meeting

III. Announcements

IV. Staff Director's Report

V. Staff Advisory Committee Report
    - Delaware Citizens Guide to Civil Rights and Supporting Services (Delaware)

VI. Discussion of Report on Voting Irregularities Occurring in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election

VII. Future Agenda Items

# CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

David Aronson, Press and Communications (202) 376-8312.

Edward A. Hailes, Jr., 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01-13940  Filed 5-30-01; 1:22 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-00-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISOFORO ANSELMO GARCIA

FERIA, Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 14

- 73412 Agency No. A205

- 005

- 133

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016 **
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Crisoforo Anselmo Garcia

- Feria , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions
for review of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

a ppeal from an immigration judge’ s decision denying his application for protection

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73412

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252

. We review for substantial evide nce the agency’ s factual findings, Blandino

- Medina v. Holder , 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) , and we review de novo due process claims , Sandoval

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantia l evidence supports the agency’s denial of Garcia

- Feria ’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
if returned to Mexico

. See Blandino

- Medina , 712 F.3d at 1348 ( affirming denial of CAT relief where the petit ioner “ merely presented a series of worst

- case scenarios ” ); Alphonsus v. Holder , 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013 ) ( despite troubling country report, record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured). We reject Garcia

- Feria’s contentions that
the BIA mischaracterized or failed to consider relevant evidence , failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how it weighed the evidence, or applied an incorrect legal standard to his claim

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 124 1, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) ( petitioner must establish error to prevail on a due proc ess claim)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.