alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<table>
                               EXHIBIT 12.2
                     SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollars in millions)
<caption>

                                                                              For the nine
                                                                              months ended
                                                                              September 30,
                               1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------

                          <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>
Fixed Charges:

  Interest                     $ 88      $ 81      $ 62      $ 72      $ 70      $ 36

  Interest portion of
    annual rentals                5         4         3         4         3         1
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
   Total Fixed Charges for
     Purpose of Ratio          $ 93      $ 85      $ 65      $ 76      $ 73      $ 37
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
Earnings:

Pretax income from
 continuing operations         $416      $287      $383      $390      $377      $302

Total Fixed Charges
  (from above)                   93        85        65        76        73        37
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
 Total Earnings for
  Purpose of Ratio             $509      $372      $448      $466      $450      $339
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
Ratio of Earnings
 To Fixed Charges              5.47      4.38      6.89      6.13      6.16      9.16
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========



</table>
#### Irving Snell, Respondent, v. The Remington Paper Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### In re Joseph CARPINO, Petitioner.

No. 02-1778.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Joseph Carpino, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Carpino petitions this court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, asking us to order the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, to address several alleged errors in its resolution of Carpino’s underlying litigation against Wheeling Volkswagen Subaru. Mandamus relief is only available when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).

Carpino has no right to the relief he seeks because a federal circuit court cannot exercise appellate review over state court decisions. *See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Moreover, Carpino had an available remedy because he could have appealed the decision with the state court system. *See In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir.1987). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Carpino’s motion for due process, in which he challenges the constitutionality of a West Virginia magistrate’s rule, because this petition is not the appropriate forum for such a challenge. We further deny Carpino’s motion for discovery. 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.*
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 15, 2013.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00654-CV

INWENCO USA, INC., Appellant

V.

WENZHOLD L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-15624-H

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang-Miers 

Opinion by Justice Moseley

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. In the motion, appellant states the 

parties have settled their dispute and appellant no longer wishes to appeal the trial court’s 

judgment. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

130654F.P05

/Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

INWENCO USA, INC., Appellant

No. 05-13-00654-CV V.

WENZHOLD L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-15624-H.

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, 

Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We 

ORDER that each party bear its own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered this 15th day of July, 2013.

/Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
#### Ruben HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-70234.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.**

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

*224MEMORANDUM ***

Ruben Hernandez, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Unhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). We grant the petition for review.

The INS contends that Hernandez failed to establish a credible fear of persecution. To support this, the INS alleges that there are inconsistencies between Hernandez’s asylum application, asylum interview, and his testimony before the IJ. We find these inconsistencies to be minor and reasonably explained by Hernandez.

We have recognized that information contained in asylum applications (particularly those prepared with the help of a notary) is not as comprehensive as that covered in an applicant’s testimony. *Aguilera-Cota v. INS,*914 F.2d 1375, 1382 (9th Cir.1990). Thus, we make allowance for inconsistencies and lack of detail in asylum applications. *Id.*We have also refused to rely on inconsistencies between official interviews and testimony, in the absence of information in the record regarding the content and context of the interview. *See Singh v. INS,*292 F.3d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir.2002). Finally, we have held that the BIA or IJ is required to consider any explanations provided by petitioners for inconsistencies. *Osorio v. INS,*99 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir.1996).

The inconsistencies relied on by the BIA between Hernandez’s application, asylum interview, and testimony were minor and sufficiently explained by Hernandez. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility findings.

Neither the BIA nor the IJ addressed the question of whether Hernandez’ testimony, if found credible, would be sufficient to establish his eligibility for his requested relief. In light of *INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 356, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam), we remand the question of Hernandez’s eligibility for asylum, withholding, and relief under CAT to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6427 

To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the boundary 

of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2022 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to 

modify the boundary of the Red River National Wildlife 

Refuge, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Red River National 

5 Wildlife Refuge Boundary Modification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUND7 ARY MODIFICATION. 

8 Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife 

9 Refuge Act (Public Law 106–300; 114 Stat. 1055) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘map entitled ‘Red River National 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6427 IH

1 Wildlife Refuge—Selection Area’, dated September 5, 

2 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘map entitled ‘Red River National 

3 Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary’ and dated Novem4 ber 17, 2021’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### SHEFFIELD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

March 2, 1954.

On Rehearing May 25, 1954.

*66Pepper & Faircloth, Miami, and Willes & Bittan, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Mark R. Hawes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined and considered the record in this case in the light of briefs filed and have also, pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Section 924.32, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., reviewed the evidence to determine if the interests of justice require a new trial, with the result that we find no reversible error is made to appear and the evidence does not reveal that the ends of justice require a new trial to be awarded.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and DREW, JJ., dissent.

DREW, Justice

(dissenting).

I do not believe the record here supports a conviction and sentence of murder in the first degree. The cause should be remanded for a sentence for murder in the second degree as provided by Sec. 924.34, F.S.A.

On Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Petition for rehearing of this case was granted and after reconsideration, the Court is of the view “that the evidence does not prove the * * * offense of which the defendant [was] found guilty,” murder in the first degree, but does establish guilt of murder in the second degree. So, by authority of Section 924.34, Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A., the judgment is reversed with directions to enter a judgment for such lesser offense and to pass sentence accordingly.

ROBERTS, C. J., TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.

SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.4

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial 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 September 30, 2003 (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.



November 6, 2003
                                               /S/ DEBRA L. REED
                                             ______________________
                                               Debra L. Reed
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### Peter A. Misner, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*Joseph Lighthall, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO LA SALLE.

The rale of the common law, which requires the owner of cattle, &e., to keep them upon his own land, is not in force in Elinois; and in order to maintain trespass, the owner of the close must show that it was protected by a good and sufficient fence.

The opinion of the Court embodies a statement of the case.

This cause was heard before Catón, Justice, at March term, 1848.

A. Hoes, for plaintiff in error.

E. S. Leland, for defendant in error.

Treat, C. J.

This was an action of trespass, brought by Lighthall against Misner. The declaration alleged, that the defendant’s hogs entered the plaintiff’s close, and destroyed the corn growing therein. The second plea alleged in substance, that the plaintiff’s close was situated adjoining a large tract of unimproved land, which was not surrounded by a fence, or in the actual possession of any person, but was lying open and common to the stock of all persons residing in the neighborhood; that the defendant resided in the neighborhood of the plaintiff’s close, and suffered his hogs to run at large upon the adjoining uninclosed land; that the hogs, without his knowledge and against his will,"entered from the same into the plaintiff’s close, through the defects and insufficiency of the plaintiff’s fence; and that the plaintiff’s close was not protected or separated from the adjoining uninclosed land by a good and sufficient fence. The third plea alleged generally, that the plaintiff’s close was not surrounded by any good and sufficient fence, wherefore the defendant’s hogs, without his knowledge and against his will, entered upon the close, through the defects of the fence, and committed the injury complained of. The Court sustained a general demurrer to the pleas; and the plaintiff had *610a verdict and judgment on the issues of fact formed in the cause.

This court decided, in Seeley *v.*Peters, (5 Gilm. 130,) that the rule of the common law, which requires the owner of cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, &c., to keep them upon his own land, has never been in force in this State; and that in order to maintain an action for the trespass of such animals to one’s close, the owner of the close must have it surrounded by a good and sufficient fence. On the principle of that case, the pleas presented a good defence to the action. The hogs were lawfully upon the uninclosed land, contiguous to the close of the plaintiff, and it was his duty to have protected himself against them by a sufficient fence. If he neglected to keep up a fence sufficient ordinarily to prevent stock from going upon his land, and the hogs entered thereon for the want of such a fence, he must abide the consequences. The case might be different, if the defendant had driven them into the close; but the pleas fully negative any such conclusion. They show that the injury resulted from the insufficiency of the fence, and not from any fault on the part of the defendant. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer; and the judgment must be reversed, and the cause be remanded.

*Judgment*reversed!.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being made to accompany the Registrant’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2011**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2011 (the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:   September 20, 2011 | /S/ KAREN W. KATZ                                      |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Karen W. Katz

President   and Chief Executive Officer |

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2011 (the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:   September 20, 2011 | /s/   JAMES E. SKINNER                                                                                 |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | James   E. Skinner

Executive   Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and

Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2551** 

MR. JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv
- 03485

- ELH )

Submitted : March 21, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. appeals the district court ’s order dismissing his civil case. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. U.S.
District Courts , No. 1:12

- cv
- 03485

- ELH (D. Md. filed Dec. 3,
2012; entered Dec. 7, 2012). We gr ant Brown leave to proceed in
forma pauperis but deny his motion to seal the case. 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
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each person whose signature appears below, hereby authorizes and appoints Raj Rajeswaran and Paul Boldy or either of them as his attorneys-in-fact with full power of substitution and re-substitution, to sign and file on his behalf individually and in each such capacity stated, below, the Annual report of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. on Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2011, and any amendments thereto to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a national securities exchange or automated quotation system of a registered securities association, or similar body, and otherwise, as fully as such person could do in person, hereby verifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Signature and TitleDate/s/
    RAJ RAJESWARANMay 31, 2011Raj Rajeswaran, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)/s/
    PAUL BOLDYMay 31, 2011Paul Boldy, Director, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)/s/
    ALAN HARTMay 31, 2011Alan Hart, Vice President of Exploration and Director/s/
    JOHN KALDIMay 31, 2011John Kaldi, Director/s/
    ARNE RAABEMay 31, 2011Arne Raabe, Corporate Secretary and Director
Exhibit 32.1

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, G. Wayne McAlister, Chief Executive 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/ G. Wayne McAlister 
|                     |  | G. Wayne McAlister     
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
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 Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the MGP, 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 condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009