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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                           EXHIBIT 12(A)
 
                    PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                                                                    12 Months
                                                      YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,                        Ended
                                  --------------------------------------------------------------   September 30,
                                     1990         1991         1992         1993         1994          1995
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------    ---------
                                                            (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
<S>                               <C>          <C>           <C>         <C>         <C>            <C>
Net Income....................... $  537,619   $  545,479   $  475,936   $  614,868   $  659,406    $  622,550
Plus Income Taxes (A)............    209,360      261,912      223,782      307,414      301,447       289,959
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------    ----------
Income Before Income Taxes.......    746,979      807,391      699,718      922,282      960,853       912,509
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------    ----------
Fixed Charges
  Interest Charges (B)...........    346,020      358,517      401,902      389,956      395,925       410,831
  Interest Factor in Rentals.....      9,162        9,311        9,591       11,090       12,120        12,057
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------    ----------
          Total..................    355,182      367,828      411,493      401,046      408,045       422,888
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------    ----------
Earnings Before Fixed Charges.... $1,102,161   $1,175,219   $1,111,211   $1,323,328   $1,368,898    $1,335,397
                                  ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========    ==========

Ratio............................       3.10         3.20         2.70         3.30         3.35          3.16
                                        ====         ====         ====         ====         ====          ====
 
(A)  Includes state income taxes and federal income taxes for other income.

(B)  Excludes 1991 and 1992 interest expense on decommissioning costs of $6,956 and $5,208,
     respectively.  Effective January 1, 1992, accounting was changed to follow Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission guidelines.
</TABLE>
Order entered February 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01214-CV

LORIANNE JENAE WOLF, Appellant

V.

JOHN ROBERT NYGARD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-16-0756

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 4, 2020 unopposed motion requesting an 

abatement or an extension to file her brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion to the extent 

that appellant shall file her brief by MARCH 12, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1015 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1015

To provide for an increase in the amount of Servicemember's Group Life 
Insurance paid to survivors of members of the Armed Forces who died in 
  the performance of duty between November 1, 2000, and April 1, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2001

Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia (for herself, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Schrock, 
 Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Cantor, and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an increase in the amount of Servicemember's Group Life 
Insurance paid to survivors of members of the Armed Forces who died in 
  the performance of duty between November 1, 2000, and April 1, 2001.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN SERVICEMEMBER'S GROUP LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT FOR 
              SERVICEMEMBERS DYING IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY BETWEEN DATE 
              OF ENACTMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF RECENT BENEFIT 
              INCREASE.

    (a) Increase in SGLI Benefit.--In the case of a member of the Armed 
Forces who (as determined by the Secretary concerned) died in the 
performance of duty during the period beginning on November 1, 2000, 
and ending at the close of March 31, 2001, and who on the date of death 
was insured under the Servicemember's Group Life Insurance program for 
the maximum amount of insurance available under the program, the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase the amount of insurance 
payable under that program by reason of that member's death by $50,000 
(such amount being the amount by which the automatic maximum amount of 
insurance under that program is increased effective April 1, 2001, 
pursuant to section 312(a) of Public Law 106-419, enacted November 1, 
2000).
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) The term ``Servicemember's Group Life Insurance 
        program'' means the program of life insurance administered by 
        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under subchapter III of 
        chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code.
            (2) The term ``Secretary concerned'' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 101(25) of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joel Valdez, * From the 161st District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. B-43,431

Vs. No. 11-21-00240-CR * February 9, 2023

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frances A. Birch

v. Civil No. 05-cv-179-JD

ESI Mail Pharmacy Services, Inc.

O R D E R

ESI Mail Pharmacy Services, Inc., has moved to compel

responses to interrogatories and document requests propounded to

the plaintiff, Frances A. Birch. In her objection to the motion,

filed on January 19, 2006, Birch promised that her counsel would

provide the responses on January 20, 2006. The court has heard

nothing further from either party on this subject. The motion to

compel (document no. 15) is therefore DENIED as moot. To the

extent ESI seeks to recover the costs of its motion from Birch,

that request is also DENIED because it was not made in a separate

filing as required by L.R. 7.1(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 10, 2006

cc: Anthony S. Augeri, Esquire

Richard E. Fradette, Esquire

Scott H. Harris, Esquire

Catherine M. Hensler-Dickenson, Esquire

Timothy F. McCurdy, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00179-JD Document 17 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Roy Lee NEWTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45840.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 19, 1972.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, five (5) years.

The record reflects the appellant was sentenced on November 15, 1971, at which time he waived his right to appeal after being advised of such right and his right to have an attorney appointed to represent him on appeal.

On December 13, 1971, the appellant filed a motion for permission to file an untimely notice of appeal. The record does not re-fleet the court’s action on the motion.

This Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where there is no timely motion for appeal or leave of the court for good cause shown to file such notice after ten days. Art. 44.08(c), (e), Vernon’s Ann.GC.P. Caldwell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 383 S.W.2d 590, and Nix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 710.

The appeal is dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Archstone-Smith
Operating Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the Issuer), hereby
certifies, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Periodic Report) of
the Issuer for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, which accompanies this
certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m(a)) and that the information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

|                  |  |                                                 
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2003 |  |                                                 
|                  |  |                                                 
|                  |  |                                                 
|                  |  | /s/ CHARLES E. MUELLER, JR.                     
|                  |  |                                                 
|                  |  | Charles E. Mueller, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
#### WELLS v. DOUGLASS LIFE INS. CO.

No. 14733.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 1, 1934.

For former opinion, see 156 So. 34.

Solomon S. Goldman, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Cameron C. McCann,- of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This matter came before us on appeal from the First city court of New Orleans. The amount involved is less than $300 and in excess of $100. We rendered our decree on the 26th day of June, 1934. On the 11th day of July counsel for plaintiff-appellee filed application for rehearing.

The application cannot be considered by us, since it was made too late. By the provisions of Act No. 16 of 1910, final judgments rendered in term time by this court in matters appealed from the city courts of New Orleans “become final on the sixth calendar day after rendition.”

The fact that many attorneys, in matters appealed from the city court and involving more than $100 and less than $300, have filed applications for rehearing after the fifth calendar day, leads us to think that there is a misunderstanding as to the law applicable and induces the belief that certain counsel are of the opinion that the constitutional provision, section 90 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1921, as amended in 1928, and the present statute resulting therefrom, to wit, Act No. 219 of 1932, which repeals Act No. 128 of 1921, in some way apply to this and the other Courts of Appeal. In Valmont Service Station v. Avegno, 3 La. App. 335, we said, with reference to the act of 1921, that that statute “regulates the practice in the City Courts alone and has no application to the Court of Appeal.” The act of 1921 has, as we have stated, been superseded by the act of 1932, which latter statute, likewise, has no application to the Court of Appeal. See, also, Claude Neon Fed. Co. v. Meyer Bros. (La. App.) 151 So. 139, and the cases therein cited, to wit: O. K. Realty Co. v. Juliani, 157 La. 277,102 So. 399, and Yazpo & M. Y. R. R. Co. v. Marx & Sons, 17 La. App. 174, 135 So. 64, 675.

For the reasons assigned the application for rehearing is dismissed without consideration.

Application not considered.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 98 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 98

    Providing for a 3-year moratorium on postage rate increases for 
           nonprofit organizations and certain other mailers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2002

  Mr. Sanders (for himself, Mr. Goode, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. 
   Kucinich, Ms. Lee, Mr. Hilliard, and Mr. DeFazio) introduced the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for a 3-year moratorium on postage rate increases for 
           nonprofit organizations and certain other mailers.

Whereas the increasing consolidation of the media is a threat to the free 
        exchange of ideas, and makes the expression of a wide range of 
        political, social, cultural, educational, scientific, and religious 
        views more difficult;
Whereas small and independent periodicals are, along with the Internet, the most 
        important guarantors of free expression of diverse ideas, views, and 
        opinions; and
Whereas the continuing health of these vitally important small and independent 
        periodicals is at risk each time rates of postage are increased: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, for the 3-year period 
beginning on the date on which this resolution is approved, rates of 
postage under section 3626 of title 39, United States Code (relating to 
reduced rates) shall not be increased for any of the following:
            (1) Periodical publications having a paid or requester 
        circulation per issue of less than 50,000.
            (2) Any issue of a periodical publication the advertising 
        portion of which is less than 20 percent of such issue.
            (3) Any publication of a nonprofit organization, as defined 
        by former section 4358 of title 39, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
**
**Exhibit 15.2**

Date: July 3, 2019 

**MOGU Inc.**

Zheshang Wealth Center, 12/F, Building No. 1, No. 99 Gudun Road 

Xihu District, Hangzhou, 310012 

People’s Republic of China

Dear Sir/Madam: 

We hereby consent to the reference to ourfirm and the summaries of our opinions under the headings “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry”, “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to OurCorporate Structure” and “Item 4. Information on the Company—C. Organizational Structure” in MOGU Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019(the “**Annual Report**”), which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “**SEC**”) in June 2019 and the amendment to the Annual Report which will be filed with the SEC in July 2019 (the “AmendedAnnual Report”), and further consent to the incorporation by reference of the summaries of our opinions that appear under the headings “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry”,“Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Corporate Structure” and “Item 4. Information on the Company—C. Organizational Structure” in the Annual Report and the Amended Annual Report into theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-229419) pertaining to MOGU Inc.’s Amended and Restated Global Share Plan. We also consent to the filing ofthis consent letter with the SEC as an exhibit to the Annual Report. 

In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category ofpersons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in each case, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder. 

 
Yours Sincerely,
/s/ CM Law Firm
CM Law Firm**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Green, Also Known as Rovondis Cooper, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appleman, J.), rendered January 6, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is unpreserved for appellate review since no objection was registered to its submission *(see, People v Lugo,*150 AD2d 502; *People v Moore,*149 AD2d 739; *People v*
      *489
      *Ross,*148 AD2d 643; *cf., People v Nimmons,*72 NY2d 830), and we decline to review the claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Justino,*152 AD2d 744; *People v Lugo, supra; People v Moore, supra).*Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Norman OLIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-41426

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2003.

*347Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Normal Oliveros appeals his conviction after a jury trial for transporting an alien within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)® and (a)(l)(A)(v)(II). Oliveros contends that the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior conviction for aiding and abetting an undocumented alien to attempt to elude examination by Border Patrol agents in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). He asserts that this evidence was only marginally relevant and that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).

The evidence at trial established that the alien Oliveros was accused of transporting was concealed in the truck of his vehicle. Thus, evidence of his knowledge and intent were at issue. Indeed, counsel for Oliveros acknowledged, before evidence of the prior conviction was admitted, that Oliveros’s intent would be at issue. Moreover, there is no question but that Oliveros’s prior conviction was relevant to these issues; the extrinsic offense required the same intent as the charged offense. *See United States v. McMahon,*592 F.2d 871, 873 (5th Cir.1979) (holding that aiding and abetting an alien to elude examination requires the same culpable mental state as the offense of transporting aliens). We also agree that the incremental probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice. The extrinsic offense was similar to the charged offense, and was clearly proximate in time, a conviction for the extrinsic offense having been obtained only four months prior to the commission of the charged offense. *See id.*at 873-74. The introduction of the extrinsic offense did not carry significant danger of unfair prejudice. Oliveros’s prior conviction was not heinous in nature and was not of a type “likely to incite the jury to an irrational decision.” *Id.*at 876. Finally, we conclude that any prejudicial effect of the extrinsic offense evidence was minimized by the district court’s limiting instruction, an instruction that Oliveros’s counsel had previously requested. *Id.*at 873, 876. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of 01-*348iveros’s prior conviction. *See United States v. Beechum,*582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-045
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
     made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
     made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor