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

Travelport Limited
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)

Predecessor
(Combined)

Company (Consolidated)January 1-
August 22, 2006

July 13,
(Formation Date)-
December 31, 2006

Year Ended
December 31, 2007

Year Ended
December 31, 2008Earnings available to cover fixed charges:Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest and equity in losses of investments, net

$
(2,279
)
$
(155
)
$
(391
)
$
11Plus: Fixed charges


50


159


410


359Earnings available to cover fixed charges

$
(2,229
)
$
4

$
19

$
370Fixed Charges:Interest, including amortization of deferred financing costs

$
43

$
155

$
398

$
347Interest portion of rental payment


7


4


12


10Total fixed charges

$
50

$
159

$
410

$
357Ratio of Earnings to fixed charges


n/a


n/a


n/a


1.04


Due
to the loss from continuing operations before income taxes, minority interest and equity in losses of investments, net for the period January 1, 2006 through August 22,
2006, the Predecessor's earnings would have been insufficient to cover fixed charges by $2,279 million and the period July 13, (Formation Date) to December 31, 2006 and the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company's earnings would have been insufficient to cover fixed charges by $155 million and $391 million, respectively.

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3300 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3300

To prohibit the payment of certain legal settlements to individuals who 
                 unlawfully entered the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 2, 2021

  Mr. Tillis (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Hawley, 
Mr. Cramer, Mr. Graham, Mr. Daines, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lee, Mrs. 
Capito, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Scott of 
 Florida, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Braun, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Young, 
    Ms. Collins, Mr. Romney, Mr. Burr, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Grassley) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the payment of certain legal settlements to individuals who 
                 unlawfully entered the United States.

    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 ``Protect American Taxpayer Dollars 
from Illegal Immigration Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON LEGAL SETTLEMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO UNLAWFULLY 
              ENTERED THE UNITED STATES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds, 
including amounts deposited into the Judgment Fund established under 
section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, may be expended for any 
legal settlement to any individual who violated section 275(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1325(a)) if the claims giving 
rise to such settlement are based on the lawful detention of such 
individual as part of a family unit after entry at a port of entry or 
between ports of entry along the southern border of the United States 
after January 20, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
4.3


 


DEMAND
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$15,000.00	Sarasota,
    FL
	 	December
    2, 2022


 


For
value received, and intending to be legally bound, INVO Bioscience Inc. (the “Maker”), promises to pay the total sum
of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) to STEVE SHUM (the “Holder”) together with a financing fee (the “Fee”)
of ten percent (10%). Should this demand promissory note (this “Note”) not be repaid in full by January 31, 2023,
interest shall accrue on the Note from the date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (computed on the basis
of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months). Principal, the Fee and any interest due shall be paid in full on demand, following ten (10)
calendar day prior written notice, which may be given by Holder starting on January 2, 2023. Payments shall be applied first to
any accrued interest and then to the financing fee and shall be made at such place as the Holder may direct.


 


This
Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty, premium or other consideration.


 


All
presentment notice of protest or notice of nonpayment or dishonor are hereby waived, and the failure of the Holder to exercise any of
his rights hereunder in any instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in that or any other instance.


 


Notwithstanding
anything stated to the contrary herein, this Note shall become immediately due and payable, without any demand or notice whatsoever,
upon the commencement of any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership or insolvency proceeding by or against the Maker, or upon the Maker
making any assignment for the benefit of creditors.


 


In
the event that this Note, together with all accrued but unpaid interest hereon, is not paid within ten (10) days after the date upon
which payment becomes due pursuant to the terms of this Note, then the Maker agrees to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses
incurred by the Holder in enforcing the obligations of the Maker under this Note.


 


This
Note may not be modified, amended, waived, extended, changed, discharged or terminated orally or by any act or failure to act on the
part of the Maker or the Holder, but only by an agreement in writing signed by both the Maker and the Holder.


 


This
note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to those provisions related to choice of
law.


 


[Signature
follows on next page]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has executed and delivered this instrument effective as of the date first written above.


 


	By Maker:	 	Reviewed and
    Approved By:
	 	 	 
	/s/
    Andrea Goren	 	/s/
    Matthew Szot
	Andrea Goren	 	Matthew Szot
	Chief Financial Officer	 	Chairman, Audit Committee
	INVO Bioscience Inc.	 	INVO Bioscience Inc.
#### Henry E. Wheeler, Appellant, v. George R. Dutton and another, Respondents

—Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
#### Robert Furey and others, Respondents, v. The Town of Gravesend and others, Appellants.

— Order granting injunction reversed, with, costs and disbursements, and order denying same affirmed, with costs. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide-event. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
#### Ida C. Henderson, Respondent, v. Sarah A. Coyle, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

—Judgment and. order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
127996 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127996 COA: 256795 Saginaw CC: 81-001266-FY DONALD OWENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2004 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3274 

To rename the Geospatial Learning Center in the Next NGA West facility 

in St. Louis, Missouri, as the Senator Roy Blunt Geospatial Learning Center. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2021 

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BURR, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KING, Mr. COTTON, Mr. BENNET, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CASEY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. 

SASSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To rename the Geospatial Learning Center in the Next NGA 

West facility in St. Louis, Missouri, as the Senator Roy 

Blunt Geospatial Learning Center. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT 

4 GEOSPATIAL LEARNING CENTER. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Geospatial Learning Center 

6 in the Next NGA West facility in St. Louis, Missouri, shall 

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3274 IS

1 designated as the ‘‘Senator Roy Blunt Geospatial Learn2 ing Center’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula4 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Geospatial Learning Center in the Next 

6 NGA West facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

7 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senator Roy Blunt 

8 Geospatial Learning Center’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________ No. 3D18-1637 Lower Tribunal No. 08-409K

________________ 

### Peter Obermeyer, Appellant,

vs. 

### Bank of New York, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James M. B arton, II, Senior Judge. Gregg Horowitz (Sarasota), for appellant. DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, and Shawn Taylor (Fort Lauderdale), fo r appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.2 Peter Obermeyer, who successfully obtained the dismissal of the foreclosure action filed against him by the Bank of New York, appeals the t rial court’s final judgment denying attorney’s fees and costs for litigating the a mount of attorney’s fees. Based on our longstanding precedent, we affirm. N. Dade Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc., 851 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ( “It is settled that in litigating over attorney’s fees, a litigant may claim fees wher e entitlement is the issue, but may not claim attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.”). See generally State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla. 1993) (“fees may be awarded for litigating the i ssue of entitlement to attorney’s fees but not the amount of attorney’s fees”). But se e Waverly at Las Olas Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Waverly Las Olas, LLC, 88 So. 3d 386, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding certain contractual language “broad enough to en compass fees incurred in litigating the amount of fees”). Affirmed.
## Covered Workers and Beneficiaries —            2023 OASDI Trustees Report

| Single-Year Tables | Historical data | Intermediate Assumptions | Low-Cost Assumptions | High-Cost Assumptions |
|--------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|

----

| a              Workers who are paid at some time during the year for employment              on which OASDI taxes are due.b              Beneficiaries with monthly benefits in current-payment status as              of June 30.c              This column is the sum of OASI and DI beneficiaries. A small              number of beneficiaries receive benefits from both funds.              Notes:               1. The number of beneficiaries does not include uninsured              individuals who received benefits under section 228 of the              Social Security Act.  The General Fund of the Treasury              reimbursed the trust funds for the costs of most of these              individuals.              2. Historical covered worker and beneficiary data are subject to              revision.              3. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2384
HALLIE N. STONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusSULLIVAN'S AUTO BODY, (Trading as) its assignees, and for suc cessors in interest; RICHARD L. SULLIVAN, JR., Owner, individually in his private capacity; JOHN RICE, Manager, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-483-A) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hallie N. Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gillen Fenske, KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the denial of a discovery motion in the underlying action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdictionbecause the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Christian Linck v. City *of*Litchfield.

*Costs—Interest—Sec. 3, Chap. 71, S. S.*

A judgment for costs bears interest, being within Sec. 3, Chap. 74, R. S.

*105[Opinion filed January 21, 1889.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County; the Hon. J. A. Creighton, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. A. N. Kingsbury and Lane & Cooper, for appellant.

Messrs. Joseph E. Paden and George L. Zink, for appellee.

Conger, J.

In a former suit between these parties, appellant had recovered against appellee, a judgment in this court for costs, amounting to sixty-four dollars and fifty cents.

This action was brought to recover such costs and interest thereon. The Circuit Court refused to allow appellant any interest on his judgment for costs, and hence he appeals.

The question whether a judgment for costs bears interest, has not been passed upon by the courts of this State, so far as we are advised. Sec. 3, Chap. 74, It. S., provides, “Judgments recovered before any court or magistrate, shall draw interest at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the date of the same until satisfied.”

If the adjudication of a court in awarding costs is a judgment within the meaning of the foregoing section, there would seem to be no room to question the propriety of allowing interest upon costs so recovered and allowed.

Sec. 7, Chap. 33, E. S., provides: “If any person shall sue in any court in this State, in any action * * * and shall

recover any debt or damage in such action, then the plaintiff or demandant shall have judgment to recover costs against defendant, to be taxed, and the same shall be recovered, together with the debt or damages by execution, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.”

Sec. 8 provides: “ If any person shall sue in any court of record of this State, in any action wherein the plaintiff or demandant might have costs in case judgment be given for him, and he be nonpros., or suffer a discontinuance, * * * *106th ni the defendant shall have judgment to recover his costs against the plaintiff * * * or defendant, to be taxed, and the same shall be recovered by like process,” etc.

It is true the clerk is the officer authorized by law to tax the costs and determine the items and their amount, but when this is done, such taxation relates back to, and is suppoited and authorized alone by the decision of the court in rendering a judgment for the costs, and is as much the judgment of the court as the damages awarded. We are inclined to think, therefore, that a judgment for costs is within the language and meaning of Sec. 3 of the chapter on interest, and that the Circuit Court erred in hojdiug differently. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (2.11 MB)

Tags:USSPACECOM, Global Sentinel, GlobalSentinel22, GS22, Global Sentinel 2022

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAYMUNA AKTHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RENA BITTER,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-2431 (LLA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Maymuna Akther, proceeding pro se,1brings this action against Defendants Rena 

Bitter, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs; Helen LaFave, Deputy Chief of 

Mission, U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh; and Antony Blinken, Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

State. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 12-14. She asks the court “to compel the Defendants to take action on and 

adjudicate her properly-filed I-130 visa application.” Id. ¶ 1. On June 10, 2024, Defendants filed 

a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the case is 

moot because Ms. Akther’s visa has been issued and she has entered the United States. ECF 

No. 11, at 1. On June 14, 2024, the court issued a Fox/Neal order directing Ms. Akther to respond 

to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before July 5, 2024. ECF No. 12. The court advised 

Ms. Akther that, if she failed to respond to Defendants’ motion in the time provided, the court 

could treat the motion as conceded, rule on Defendants’ motion based on Defendants’ arguments 

alone, or dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 12, at 1. When Ms. Akther failed to 

respond by July 5, the court extended the deadline to respond to August 5, 2024. See July 15, 2024 

1 Ms. Akther was initially represented by counsel, but counsel withdrew on June 6, 2024. 

ECF No. 10.
2

Minute Order. Because Ms. Akther has again failed to respond, and in light of Defendants’ 

representation that her visa has been issued and she has entered the United States, the court grants 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the matter as moot. See Sayad v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

No. 20-CV-2333, 2022 WL 4130840, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2022) (dismissing visa mandamus 

case as moot when a consular officer issued a final decision on the relevant visa application); 

Aboutalebi v. Dep’t of State, 19-CV-2605, 2019 WL 6894046, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2019) 

(same). A separate order will issue. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Loren L. AliKhan 

 LOREN L. ALIKHAN

 United States District Judge 

Date: August 12, 2024
Home ** Our Work ** Reports Library

# Reports Library

Welcome to the Commission’s *Reports Library.*

The Commission's reports are listed below in chronological order. Please contact us if you are interested in older reports.

The Susquehanna Atlas and Portals have other data.
number