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

GAS TRANSMISSION NORTHWEST CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

($ in millions)



|                                   |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|---------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- | ---- | ------------- | - | ----
|                                   |  | For the Three Months Ended
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |  | March 31,2004              |      | March 31,2003
|Earnings                           |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Net income                         |  | $                          | 16.3 |               | $ | 16.4
|Adjustments:                       |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Income taxes                       |  |                            | 10.3 |               |   | 10.5
|Fixed charges (as below)           |  |                            | 9.7  |               |   | 10.1
|                                   |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Total adjusted earnings            |  | $                          | 36.3 |               | $ | 37.0
|                                   |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|                                   |  |                           
|Fixed charges:                     |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Net interest expense               |  | $                          | 9.5  |               | $ | 9.9 
|Adjustments:                       |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Interest component of rents        |  |                            | 0.1  |               |   | 0.1 
|AFUDC debt                         |  |                            | 0.1  |               |   | 0.1 
|                                   |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Total fixed charges                |  | $                          | 9.7  |               | $ | 10.1
|                                   |  |                            |      |               |   |     
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                            | 3.7  |               |   | 3.7 
|                                   |  |                            |      |               |   |
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1011 CA 15-00400**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN MONROE COUNTY AND MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS,

AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MONROE COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC, PITTSFORD (EDWARD TREVVETT OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. BLITMAN & KING LLP, ROCHESTER (BRIAN J. LACLAIR OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (W. Patrick Falvey, A.J.), dated March 31, 2014. The order, among other things, denied the petition to stay arbitration and granted the cross petition to compel arbitration. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens , 155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,162
<INVENTORY>                                      4,495
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,264
<PP&E>                                       4,782,040
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,141,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,431,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,564
<BONDS>                                      1,592,163
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     339,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,431,148
<SALES>                                        115,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,476
<CGS>                                           46,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (47,859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (19,114)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (28,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28,745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.65)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.65)
        
<FN>
<F1>  Reflects basic earnings per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6192 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify certain automatic 

fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15-year property for purposes of depreciation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mr. PASCRELL (for himself, Mr. KATKO, and Ms. NEWMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify 

certain automatic fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15- 

year property for purposes of depreciation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘High Rise Fire Sprin5 kler Incentive Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN AUTOMATIC FIRE 

7 SPRINKLER SYSTEM RETROFITS. 

8 (a) TREATMENT AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY.—Section 

9 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vi), by 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6192 IH

1 striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting 

2 ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(viii) any automatic fire sprinkler 

4 system retrofit property.’’. 

5 (b) APPLICABLE DEPRECIATION METHOD.—Section 

6 168(b)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(H) Any automatic fire sprinkler system 

9 retrofit property.’’. 

10 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

11 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting 

12 after the item relating to subparagraph (E)(vii) the fol13 lowing: 

‘‘(E)(viii) ......................................................................................... 39’’. 

14 (d) DEFINITION OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER

15 SYSTEM RETROFIT PROPERTY.—Section 168(i) of such 

16 Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 

17 paragraph: 

18 ‘‘(20) AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

19 RETROFIT PROPERTY.—The term ‘automatic fire 

20 sprinkler system retrofit property’ means any sprin21 kler system which— 

22 ‘‘(A) meets the standards of National Fire 

23 Protection Association 13 (or any successor 

24 benchmark), 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6192 IH

1 ‘‘(B) is installed for use in residential 

2 property, and 

3 ‘‘(C) is installed in a building which— 

4 ‘‘(i) was placed in service before the 

5 date of such installation, and 

6 ‘‘(ii) has an occupiable floor more 

7 than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire 

8 department vehicle access.’’. 

9 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply after the date of enactment of this 

11 Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
179 La. 785

#### STATE ex rel. NAVO v. BAYNARD, State Auditor, et al.

No. 32526.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1934.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1934.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen. (George M. Wallace, of Baton Rouge, of counsel), for appellants.

Ruvian D. Hendrick, J. E. Reynolds, and Joe B. Hamiter, all of Shreveport, and Charles A. Holcombe, of Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This case was before us in 1933, on appeal, by the plaintiff, from a judgment overruling the defendants’ exception to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae, and their exception of misjoinder, but sustaining'their exceptions of no right and no cause of action.

This court amended the judgment appealed from by overruling the exceptions of no right and no cause of action, and remanding the case to be tried on the merits.

The opinion and decree will be found in 176 La. 520, 146 So. 41.

The case is accurately stated in that opinion, and the conclusion expressed therein is the law of this case and must be followed, especially, as, on the trial on the merits, only the record as made on the trial of the exceptions and the judgment of this court remanding the case were submitted to the trial judge.

With nothing added to the original record except the judgment of this court, the trial-judge made the alternative writ of mandamus peremptory, commanding R. L. Whitman, superintendent of the state bureau of criminal identification, to direct L. B. Baynard, Jr., auditor of the state of Louisiana, to issue a warrant for relator’s salary for the months of March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December, 1931, at the rate of $208.33 per month, and to issue said warrants in favor of S. J. Navo, relator.

For the reasons stated, we see no error in the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed. ..

ST. PAUL, J., absent.
No. DA 06-0620 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

 

2007 MT 25N 

IN THE MATTER OF D.R. and A.S., 

Youths in Need of Care. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. CDJ-05-111-Y

Honorable Kenneth R. Neill, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Joslyn Hunt, 

Assistant Appellant Defender, Helena, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Mark Mattioli, 

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Brant S. Light, Cascade Count Attorney; Sarah Corbally 

Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana 

 

Submitted on Briefs: January 16, 2007 

 Decided: February 6, 2007 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk 
2

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited 

as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and 

its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's 

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. 

¶2 The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, terminated J.S.’s parental rights 

to her sons D.R. and A.S. in August of 2006, fifteen months after it granted the Department 

of Public Heath and Human Services (DPHHS) temporary investigative authority and ten 

months after it adjudicated the boys youths in need of care and granted their temporary legal 

custody to DPHHS. J.S. appeals, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion because 

she had made some progress toward completing her court-approved treatment plan. We 

affirm. 

¶3 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 

1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum 

opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that the appeal is without 

merit. Partial, or even substantial, compliance with a treatment plan is not sufficient to 

forestall termination of parental rights if other criteria for termination have been established. 

See § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, and, e.g., In re T.L., 2005 MT 256, ¶ 14, 329 Mont. 58, ¶ 14, 

122 P.3d 453, ¶ 14 (citation omitted). The District Court did not abuse its discretion in 

terminating J.S.’s parental rights. 

¶4 Affirmed. 
3

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

We concur: 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

/S/ JIM RICE
Exhibit 32.3

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



August 5, 2004
                                                /S/ EDWIN A. GUILES
                                              ______________________
                                               Edwin A. Guiles
                                               Chief Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6409 

To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2022 

Mr. DONALDS (for himself, Mr. BUDD, Mr. MOONEY, and Mr. ARRINGTON) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repeal CFPB Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

6 The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 

7 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is repealed, and the provisions of law 

8 amended or repealed by that Act are restored or revived 

9 as if the Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**NEIMAN MARCUS, INC.SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**
| **JURISDICTION OF SUBSIDIARY/AFFILIATE** | ** ** | **INCORPORATION** | ** ** | **SHAREHOLDER**                                                               |
|------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bergdorf Goodman, Inc.                   |       | New York          |       | Neiman Marcus Holdings, Inc.                                                  |
| Bergdorf Graphics, Inc.                  |       | New York          |       | Bergdorf Goodman, Inc.                                                        |
| BergdorfGoodman.com, LLC                 |       | Delaware          |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| Kate Spade LLC                           |       | Delaware          |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (56%) Alex Noel, Inc.  (44%)                    |
| NEMA Beverage Corporation                |       | Texas             |       | NEMA Beverage Holding Corporation                                             |
| NEMA Beverage Holding Corporation        |       | Texas             |       | NEMA Beverage Parent Corporation                                              |
| NEMA Beverage Parent Corporation         |       | Texas             |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| NM Financial Services, Inc.              |       | Delaware          |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| NMGP, LLC                                |       | Virginia          |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| NM Nevada Trust                          |       | Massachusetts     |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (90 shares) Bergdorf  Goodman, Inc. (10 shares) |
| Neiman Marcus Funding Corporation        |       | Delaware          |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| Neiman Marcus Holdings, Inc.             |       | California        |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| Quality Call Care Solutions, Inc.        |       | Ontario, Canada   |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.            |       | Delaware          |       | Neiman Marcus, Inc.                                                           |
| Willow Bend Beverage Corporation         |       | Texas             |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |
| Worth Avenue Leasing Company             |       | Florida           |       | The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.                                                 |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1076
ABU TAIOB HAQ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-566-285) Submitted: September 12, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Seguinot, THE HELEIN LAW GROUP, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Petitioner. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Abu Taiob Haq, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying a motion to reconsider the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Haq’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6468

RALPH EDWARD MCFALLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-1028-2)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph Edward McFalls, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to

file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny Appellant’s motion to appoint counsel and 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
Exhibit 32.2

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 LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chris A. Walker, 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:



| | (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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2010 |  |                        
|                     |  | /s/ Chris A. Walker    
|                     |  | Chris A. Walker        
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer