alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST CORPORATION
SEC FILING - FORM 10-Q - 2ND QTR 1999
EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           For the Three Months Ended                For the Six Months Ended
                                                      -------------------------------------    -------------------------------------
Ratio of earnings to Fixed Charges                        1999                     1998            1999                     1998
                                                      -------------            ------------    ------------            -------------
<S>                                                  <C>                       <C>             <C>                     <C>
Earnings
     Net income                                               11.8                    14.4            24.9                     30.2
Adjustments:
     Income taxes                                              7.3                     9.1            15.4                     19.3
     Fixed charges (as below)                                 10.6                    10.9            21.2                     21.9
                                                      -------------            ------------    ------------            -------------
              Total adjusted earnings                         29.7                    34.4            61.5                     71.4
                                                      =============            ============    ============            =============


Fixed charges:  (a)
     Net interest expense                                     10.3                    10.7            20.5                     21.6
Adjustments:
     Interest component of rents                               0.0                     0.0             0.0                      0.0
     AFUDC debt                                                0.3                     0.2             0.7                      0.3
                                                      -------------            ------------    ------------            -------------
              Total fixed charges                             10.6                    10.9            21.2                     21.9
                                                      =============            ============    ============            =============


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                             2.8                     3.2             2.9                      3.3
                                                      =============            ============    ============            =============

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

                             Juniper Networks, Inc.
                       Aircraft Reimbursement Policy for
                                  Scott Kriens
                  (as amended and restated February 28, 2005)

WHEREAS, Juniper Networks, Inc. ("Juniper") acknowledges that Scott Kriens has
paid or incurred and will continue to pay or incur certain travel expenses on
behalf of Juniper in the performance of his duties as Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Juniper;

WHEREAS, such travel expenses include use of private aircraft for purposes of
travel in connection with Juniper business;

WHEREAS, Juniper has determined that the use of private aircraft by Scott Kriens
is reasonable and necessary to properly and efficiently fulfill the critical,
frequent, and often changing demands placed on Scott Kriens in his capacity as
the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Juniper;

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the benefits derived from and need for use of private
aircraft in the conduct of Juniper business, Juniper has not committed, and does
not currently plan to commit, funds toward the purchase, in whole or in part, or
the lease of corporate aircraft;

WHEREAS, Juniper has partially reimbursed Scott Kriens for substantiated
expenses attributable to such use of private aircraft for Juniper business under
its general expense reimbursement policy;

WHEREAS, Juniper has decided to formalize its reimbursement policy for Scott
Kriens and establish a fixed rate for such reimbursement;

IT IS RESOLVED, Juniper will reimburse Scott Kriens for substantiated expenses
attributable to the use of private aircraft in connection with the performance
of services for Juniper as its Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President,
equal to a fixed rate per flying hour in connection with any such flight (such
amount shall initially be established as $2,000 per hour and shall be subject to
periodic review based on actual ordinary operating costs); provided, however,
that the total reimbursement amount paid to Scott Kriens in connection with any
flight shall not exceed the amount permitted to be charged by the FAA under
timeshare agreements pursuant to FAR Part 91.501(d); and provided further,
however, that the total reimbursement amount with respect to flights taken in
any calendar year shall not exceed either of $650,000 or the actual total
ordinary operating costs associated with those flights. No reimbursement or
other compensation will be provided to Scott Kriens for any air travel expenses
paid or incurred above the amount permitted under this paragraph.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1068** 

In R e: WILKINS MCNAIR, JR. , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 1:06

- cr - 00281

- CCB

- 1; 1:09

- cr - 00320

- CCB

- 1 )

Submitted : March 6, 2014 Decided: March 12, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Wilkins McNair, Jr. , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wilkins McNair, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and his motion for release on bond **.** He seeks an order from this court directing the dist rict court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied relief on McNair’s § 2255 motions in orders entered on February 18, 2014
. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided McNair ’s case s , we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and grant McNair’s motion to amend and supplement his petition . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2 4
1.000000 1609.344000
100 44.723599
41979 0
0.000000 20134.789007
0.447236 15673.761777
0.894472 9199.136966
1.341708 7256.003056
1.788944 6293.973370
2.236180 6064.419622
2.683416 5979.014412
3.130652 5879.304964
3.577888 6186.030096
4.025124 5869.675849
4.472360 5366.238179
4.919596 5057.840153
5.366832 4575.039131
5.814068 4274.632200
6.261304 3939.843295
6.708540 3553.301553
7.155776 3101.262962
7.603012 2859.446130
8.050248 2747.067783
8.497484 2465.426760
8.944720 2179.339288
9.391956 1935.543419
9.839192 1651.870228
10.286428 1572.996362
10.733664 1460.888190
11.180900 1301.880911
11.628136 1137.265771
12.075372 874.509357
12.522608 807.429479
12.969844 753.557433
13.417080 727.140974
13.864316 649.917069
14.311552 493.524894
14.758788 453.270810
15.206024 368.763148
15.653260 347.138256
16.100496 328.798240
16.547732 256.702709
16.994968 247.689599
17.442204 248.299647
17.889440 260.631195
18.336676 192.823510
18.783912 178.690926
19.231148 184.941945
19.678384 162.111721
20.125620 140.003893
20.572856 113.316004
21.020092 108.780613
21.467328 103.584887
21.914564 95.930809
22.361800 73.385450
22.809036 89.473281
23.256272 81.144758
23.703508 52.348984
24.150744 39.125931
24.597980 55.064710
25.045216 50.828186
25.492452 50.833632
25.939688 61.237003
26.386924 59.675923
26.834160 52.335644
27.281396 35.231634
27.728632 29.418890
28.175868 28.057063
28.623104 36.771393
29.070340 27.532155
29.517576 22.990365
29.964812 26.584325
30.412048 34.922841
30.859284 29.785263
31.306520 14.948334
31.753756 14.656864
32.200992 15.743670
32.648228 16.435211
33.095464 9.328302
33.542700 15.010159
33.989935 15.065146
34.437171 17.285462
34.884407 12.411362
35.331643 3.533891
35.778879 3.988519
36.226115 1.302422
36.673351 0.907755
37.120587 5.431929
37.567823 7.344889
38.015059 8.516714
38.462295 8.897995
38.909531 2.819947
39.356767 2.786322
39.804003 7.579223
40.251239 6.253322
40.698475 2.692170
41.145711 0.300205
41.592947 0.001495
42.040183 0.000000
42.487419 0.000000
42.934655 0.000100
43.381891 0.063765
43.829127 1.683560
44.276363 3.371167
##### 



DESIGN/BUILD
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT  (LUMP SUM COST)
 21st December 007 Hogenson Construction Company, One Earth Energy
  ARTICLE 1  SCOPE OF WORK
  ARTICLE 2  TIME OF COMPLETION
  ARTICLE 3  THE CONTRACT SUM
 One Million Seventy Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety
Eight and 00/100 Dollars ($1,072,198.00).
 ARTICLE 4  CHANGE ORDERS
 Change orders may be added to this Contract in written form only. Change order pricing by the
Contractor to the Owner will include the following items:




---



##### 



1.
    
    All Engineering costs (based on published hourly rates and direct expenses).2.
    
    All Material direct costs including Freight.3.
    
    All Labor direct costs including Supervision.4.
    
    All Subcontractor direct costs.5.
    
    All Construction Equipment Rental costs that the Contractor may incur in performing
the change.6.
    
    All Taxes and Insurance costs that the Contractor may incur on direct materials,
labor, subcontracts, or other areas.7.
    
    Any reasonable General Condition costs that the Contractor may incur in performing
the change.8.
    
    The Contractors Overhead of 10% on total costs.9.
    
    The Contractors Commission of 10% on total costs.
   ARTICLE 5  DOWN PAYMENT ADVANCES
  ARTICLE 6  PROGRESS PAYMENTS
  th




---



##### 



ARTICLE 7  ACCEPTANCE AND FINAL PAYMENT
   ARTICLE 8  NOTICE TO OWNER OF LIEN RIGHTS
   ARTICLE 9  THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS




---



##### 



ACCEPTED BY:/s/ Dunnley Mattke
    
    
    
    /s/ Steve KellyDunnley Mattke
    
    
    
    Title: General ManagerPresident
    
    
    
    One Earth Energy 12-26-2007Hogenson Construction Company




---



##### 



SPECIFICATIONS
 AUGER CAST PILE SYSTEM TO SUPPORT
CORN AND DDGS SILOS
C0730
 1. PROJECT
 1-1 GENERAL
 ONE EARTH ENERGY, GIBSON CITY, IL HOGENSON
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
      1-2 SCOPE OF WORK




---



##### 



1-3 PERMITS
  1-4 RESPONSIBILITY




---



##### 



1-5 CONTRACTORS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
  1-6 ACCESS TO THE PROJECT
  1-7 BUILDING INSURANCE
   1-8 ALTERATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS
 10% 10% STEVEN KELLY JOE
FINK
 1-9 CHARACTER OF WORKMEN




---



##### 



1-10 EARTHWORK
    1-11 SOIL DATA
   1-12 SURFACE DRAINAGE
  1-13 SUBCONTRACTS
  1-14 GUARANTEE OF WORK




---



##### 



1-15 GUARANTEE AND WARRANTY WORK
  1-16 ARBITRATION
   1-17 DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
  1-18 CHANGES IN CODES
  1-19 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODES:
 1.
    
    American Concrete Institute (ACI).
 
    
    Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-91).
 2.
    
    OSHA Safety and Health Standards.




---



##### 



1-20 REINFORCING STEEL
  1-21 CONCRETE
 
  1-22 CONCRETE MIXING AND PLACEMENT
  1-23 CONCRETE TESTING




---



##### 



ACCEPTED BY:/s/ Dunnley Mattke
    
    
    
    /s/ Steve KellyDunnley Mattke
    
    
    
    Title: General ManagerPresident
    
    
    
    One Earth EnergyHogenson Construction CompanyDate of Acceptance:  December 26, 2007
Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-210943, 333-197102, 333-182929, 333-182928, 333-144192, 333-144191, 333-144182, 333-135360, 333-127057, 333-116734, 333-116733, 333-106310, 333-100574, 333-43486, 333-41376, 333-62013, 033-61111) of Churchill Downs Incorporated of our report dated February 21, 2024 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPLouisville, KentuckyFebruary 21, 2024
#### Khang MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BMW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1942.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Khang Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert M. Sneed, George Andrew Harper, Jackson, Lewis, Sehnitzler & Krupman, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Khang Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil ac*144tion alleging employment discrimination. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 16, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2002. Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51005-51006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,898]


Magna Services of America, Inc., Troy, MI; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on August 19, 2008 in response to a worker 
petition filed by the state workforce office on behalf of workers at 
Magna Services of America, Inc., Troy, Michigan.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 51006]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20038 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Cheryl Marie WESTHAFER, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 01-10574.

D.C. No. CR-96-00037-LKK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 8, 2002.*

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Before HAWKINS, GRABER, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cheryl Marie Westhafer pleaded guilty in 1996 to aiding and abetting a theft from a bank. She does not challenge her plea or conviction but, instead, appeals the district court’s order revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to eight months of incarceration. Westhafer completed her entire sentence on May 3, 2002, was released from custody, and is no longer subject to supervision.

In the circumstances, the appeal has become moot. A favorable judicial decision could not redress the alleged injury. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (holding that the appeal of a decision to revoke parole was moot after the defendant had completed his entire sentence for a parole revocation); *United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that a defendant lacks standing to challenge a completed sentence when the correctness of the underlying conviction is not challenged). Westhafer’s suppositions about potential future collateral consequences are too speculative to create a case or controversy. *Spencer,*523 U.S. at 14-16, 118 S.Ct. at 987.

Appeal DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; AA2 and AA3 Member Conflict 
Applications Review.
    Date: November 3, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892,(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Larry R. Williams, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3035, 
Rockville, MD 20852 301-443-2926, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#07706e6b6b6e666a744b32476a666e6b29696e6f29606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43342a2f2f2a222e300f76032e222a2f6d2d2a2b6d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: August 26, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-20323 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Photo Control
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities listed below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|                        |                                                                                              |                           |  |                             | 
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | 
|                        |                                                                                              | Photo Control Corporation
|Date:   August 13, 2004 |                                                                                              | By:                       |  | /s/   John R. Helmen        | 
|                        |                                                                                             
|                        | John R. HelmenChief Executive Officer,President and Chairperson(principal executive officer) |                          
|                        |                                                                                              | By:                       |  | /s/   Christopher S. Lausen | 
|                        |                                                                                             
|                        | Christopher S. LausenTreasurer(principal financial officer)                                  |                          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Photo Control Corporation and will be retained by Photo Control Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Vickers, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered September 15, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, we find that the hearing court properly denied the defense request for an additional adjournment in order to secure the attendance of certain witnesses. It is well settled that requests for adjournments are addressed to the court’s *501sound discretion *(see, People v Moutinho,*146 AD2d 650; *People v Africk,*107 AD2d 700, 702; *see also, People v Spears,*64 NY2d 698; *People v Singleton,*41 NY2d 402, 405). The defendant failed to adequately show due diligence in an attempt to secure the appearances of the proposed witnesses. The hearsay statement indicating that the witnesses had been served with subpoenas was insufficient to demonstrate due diligence. Further, it appears that the witnesses’ testimony would have been merely cumulative to that already offered by a defense witness.

With respect to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636). In any event, we find that the allocution was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first degree *(see,*Penal Law § 160.15). The defendant admitted to acting with the three codefendants to commit a robbery, that one of the codefendants had a gun which he displayed during the robbery, and that the defendant stayed in the car, which he was driving, while the other three committed the robbery. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.