alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 2/8/24 In re A.E. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.E., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.E.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G062617

 (Super. Ct. No. 23DL0412)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Joe 

T. Perez, Judge. Dismissed. 

William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

There is very little to be said about this case, which comes to us as a Wende

appeal from appointed counsel. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) 

Because the matter was transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court for disposition, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

Appellant, a minor, was charged in Orange County Juvenile Court with one 

count of robbery. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a).) Following the jurisdictional 

hearing, the court sustained the allegation and released appellant to his mother, who 

resides in Los Angeles County. It then transferred the case to Los Angeles County for 

disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 375, subd. (a).) Seeking review of the court’s 

jurisdictional findings, appellant appealed in this court. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a 

brief which set forth the facts of the case, but he was unable to find any arguable issues to 

raise on appellant’s behalf. He therefore invited us to review the record pursuant to 

Wende. Counsel also pointed out as a “potential issue” that this court may lack 

jurisdiction to hear the appeal, due to the transfer order. Appellant was given 30 days to 

file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no 

communication from him. 

Counsel rightly flagged jurisdiction as a potential issue in this appeal. 

Although appellant is challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, those 

findings are not separately appealable from the dispositional order. (In re Hunter W.

(2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 358, 368; In re James J. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1339, 1342-

1343.) Because the case was transferred to Los Angeles County for disposition, appellate 

jurisdiction lies in that county, and we do not have the authority to consider appellant’s 

appeal. 
3

DISPOSITION

Appeal dismissed.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3452

___________ Leonardo Cabera De Leon, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, United States * Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 13, 2006 Filed: June 16, 2006

___________ Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Leonardo Cabera De Leon (petitioner), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Boar d of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), who denied his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Because the BIA summarily affirmed without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision, a pplying the substantial-evidence standard of review. See Mamana v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2006). We treat the IJ’s credibility findings as conclusive unless contrary to what a reasonable adjudicator-2- would have been compelled to find, and we will reverse only if petitioner has shown, based on the evidence, that no reasonable ad judicator could have reached the same decision. See id. Upon review, we hold that the evidence reasonably supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. We further agree with the IJ that the evidence fails to show past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of political opinion, much less a likelihood of future persecution throughout Guatemala on account of political opinion. See Mohamed v. Ashcroft , 396 F.3d 999, 1002-06 (8th Cir. 2005) (denying petition for review where evidence suggested that attacks on petitioner’s home were part of generalized looting and banditry, and not on account of her membership in her social clan, and where petitioner failed to proffer evidence that she would be persecuted on account of her cl an membership throughout her homeland). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY NATHANIAL KEITH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR03-568-RDB) Submitted: April 8, 2005 Decided: April 26, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricardo Daniel Zwaig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Harry Mason Gruber, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* He also challenged the amount of credit given him for time spent in state custody, but has now withdrawn that claim as premature. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Terry Nathanial Keith pled guilty on August 26, 2004, to possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Keith on November 19, 2004, over his objection based on Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2 004), to fifty-seven months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release.The district court also specified an alternative sentence of fortyeight months of imprisonment pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud , 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion issued by381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated , 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005). Keith appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the federal sentencing scheme in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). * The case was held in abeyance pending the decision in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). That opinion has now issued, and applies the Court’s reasoning in Blakely to the federal sentencing guidelines. Keith now moves for an expedited remand of this case to the district court to allow implementation of the alternative- 3 - sentence previously announced by the district court, a motion which is unopposed by the Government. We grant the motion to allow the district court to reconsider Keith’s sentence in light of the Booker decision. Therefore, we affirm his conviction, vacate the sentence imposed by the district court, and remand for reconsideration of the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART , VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-26 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 24 of 24
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 36 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mark P ark er; Glo riaJ. Payer, andth os e Si m il arl y Situa te d
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.
Thu rs to n C ou nt y , Nebr as ka ; Ca ro li ne Fren ch m an ; Darren W ol f; Ge or gi a Maym be rry ; Leo na rdPet ers ; Gre g J um p; Dan Tri m

bl e; MarkEng li sh ; Vi ll ag e o f W al th il l, an Ent it y

wit hi n t he Om ah a Res erv at io n a ndwit hi n Th ur st on Co un ty, Neb ras ka ; M ik e Gran t; Gwen Po rte r; Vi daStabl er; Drew Kin ga re; Mi ch ael W ol fe, Sr.; Earle ne Hrad ec; Ran dy Urban ec; Dou gl as L. Lueb e; NoraH. Goll ; Sh el ly Pere z; Sta te of Ne br as ka
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka- Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 20, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Ju ly 21, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, andKELLY , Cir cu itJu dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.In May 20 15 , Mark Park er an d Glo ria Payer fil ed a co m pl ai nt un de r 42 U.S.C. § § 19 83 an d 19 85 ag ai ns t th e St at e of Neb ras ka ; Thu rs to n Co un ty, Neb ras ka ; th e Vil la ge of W al th il l; an d va rio us in di vi du al s as so ci at ed wit h th es e en ti ti es
. Pl ai nt iff s al le ge d th at de fen da nt s vi ol a t e d th ei r ci vi l rig ht s by qu es ti on in g, arre st in g, pr os ecu ti ng , an d jail in g pl ai nt iff s- -wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on --fo r of fen se s th ey co m

m it te d whi le d r i v i n g o n ro ad s wit hi n th e Om ah a Trib al Res erv at io n. The di st ric t co ur t 1 gr an te d de fen da nt s’ un op po se d Fed eral Ru le of C i v i l Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io ns , an d de ni ed pl ai nt iff

s’ Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro cedur e 59 (a)( 2) po st jud gm en t m ot io n.

Fo ll owi ng de no vo rev ie w of th e gr an t of th e m ot io n to di sm is s, se e Ada m s v. Am

. Fam il y Mu t. Ins . Co., 8 13 F.3d11 51 , 11 54 (8t h Cir. 20 16 ), an d caref ul rev ie w of th e pa rti es ’ subm is si on s on ap pe al , we ag ree with th e di st ric t co ur t t h a t th e
co m pl ai nt is un ti m el y un de r th e fo ur -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d se t ou t in Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 25 -2 07 , se e W il so n v. Garci a, 47 1 U.S. 26 1, 28 0 (1 98 5) , an d we co nc lu de al so th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g po st jud gm en t rel ie f, se e Stul ts
v. Am

. Po p Co rn Co ., 81 5 F.3 d 40 9, 41 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ); Arn ol d v. W oo d, 23 8 F.3 d 99 2, 9 98 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.
Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. Stro m , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Neb ras ka

. -2

-
#### COMR. OF INSURANCE v. RATE BUREAU

No. 159 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 601.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 March 1982.
Learn More About the 

National Firefighter Registry at 

www.cdc.gov/NFR

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2023-104 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2023104 

March 2023
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District 1

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4257

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

G.L.T., *

*

Defendant - Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: April 6, 1998

 Filed: April 9, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

G.L.T., a juvenile, pleaded guilty to first degree burglary, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 5032 and South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-32-1 (Michie Supp.

1997). On appeal, he challenges the amount of restitution imposed on him by the

district court. At sentencing, however, G.L.T. did not object to the order of restitution 1

he challenges here, and he concedes on appeal that the Mandatory Victims Restitution

Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A (West Supp. 1998), applies to this case. After

careful review, we believe no plain error occurred in the imposition of restitution. See
-2-

United States v. Riebold, No. 97-2837, 1998 WL 42594, at *5 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 1998)

(reviewing restitution order for plain error where defendant did not object). We note

G.L.T. can assert his indigency in any future proceeding to enforce the restitution order.

See Means v. United States, 961 F.2d 120, 121 (8th Cir. 1992) (defendant cannot be

punished by incarceration or reincarceration if failure to pay restitution occurred

through no fault of his own and alternatives to incarceration are available.) 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE v. NORMAN

No. 25 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 458.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978.
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 24 of 24
Doc 

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -X

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

07cv3466

Brodin v. Merck & Co., Inc.

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action is 

reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Keenan

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk=s

Office of the Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge=s

initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

assignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Dated: 5/09/2007

By: Jenny R. Horne

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

 

Data Quality Control 

Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 2 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### THOMPSON v. LOCKERT

No. 59 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 1.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 November 1977.
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-03439-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 7 of 7
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 16, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-2161

Lower Tribunal No. 14-10507

________________

Andria Pardes,

Petitioner,

vs.

Michael Pardes, et al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Stanford Blake, Judge.

Weissman & Dervishi, P.A., and Jeffrey M. Weissman (Fort Lauderdale),

for petitioner.

Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., and Paul Morris; Law Offices of

Kornreich & Associates, and Gerald I. Kornreich and Amber Kornreich, for

respondent Michael Pardes.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
In this dissolution of marriage case, Petitioner Andria Pardes seeks certiorari

review of a trial court order denying her motion to disqualify the attorney of

Respondent Michael Pardes. The factual findings in the trial court’s order are

supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, and the trial court’s

legal conclusions do not depart from the essential requirements of law. We

therefore deny the petition.

Petition denied.

2
Case 1:07-cr-00332-HB Document 4 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00332-HB Document 4 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 99.2**

**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 Annual Report of PharmaKinetics Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey A. Scheidt, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

|   | (1)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |
|   | (2)    |   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

|                                                           |   |        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Jeffrey A. Scheidt                                    |   |   |
| Jeffrey A. Scheidt                                        |   |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 12, 2002 |   |   |
#### CITY OF ASHEBORO v. AUMAN

No. 176 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 87.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 25 August 1975.
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 62 Filed 09/28/2007 Page 15 of 15
##### 



EXHIBIT 12

STATEMENTS RE COMPUTATION OF RATIOS

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is calculated according to a formula
specified by the Commission. Earnings, the numerator of the calculation, is
defined as pre-tax income from continuing operations excluding undistributed
income from equity method investments and fixed charges. Fixed charges, the
denominator of the calculation, are defined as interest expense, amortization
of debt expense and an estimate of interest within rental expense. We have
included interest credited to policyholders as a component of fixed charges.

Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    214.9Adjustments for equity method investments:Equity method income
    
    
    (1.3
    )Dividends received from equity method investees
    
    
    (1.3
    )Fixed charges:Interest expense, including amortization of debt
expense and interest in rental expense
    
    
    11.5Interest credited to policyholders
    
    
    228.8240.3Earnings
    
    $
    453.9Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.89Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, excluding interest credited to
policyholders
    
    
    19.57