alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12
                                       
                                AMOCO COMPANY
                                       
               STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF
                          EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                     (millions of dollars, except ratios)

                                                                      
                             Nine                                     
                            Months                                    
                            Ended            Year Ended December 31,
                                     
                           Sept. 30, 
                             1996      1995     1994    1993    1992    1991
Determination of Income:                                              
Consolidated earnings                                                 
 before income taxes                                                  
 and minority interest...    $2,314  $2,425   $2,688  $2,427  $1,823  $2,093
Fixed charges expensed by                                             
 consolidated companies..       183     233      140     193     238     231
Adjustments for certain                                               
 companies accounted for                                              
  by the equity method...        32      10        7       9      18      12
Adjusted earnings plus                                                
 fixed charges...........    $2,529  $2,668   $2,835  $2,629  $2,079  $2,336
                                                                      
Determination of Fixed Charges:                                       
Consolidated interest on                                              
 indebtedness (including                                              
 interest capitalized)...    $  117  $  152   $  127  $  162  $  219  $  216
Consolidated rental                                                   
 expense representative                                               
 of an interest factor...        66      71        7      31      20      22
Adjustments for certain                                               
 companies accounted for                                              
 by the equity method....         5       6        5       6      12      17
Total fixed charges......    $  188  $  229   $  139  $  199  $  251  $  255
                                                                      
Ratio of earnings to                                                  
 fixed charges...........      13.5*   11.6*    20.4*   13.2     8.3     9.2
                                                                      


*Based  on public debt obligations. Including debt with affiliates,  the
ratio  would have been 5.2 as of September 30, 1996, 4.4 as of  December
31, 1995, and 13.0 as of December 31, 1994.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 4, 2013

NO. 03-13-00290-CV

Virginia Jaimes, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 5, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6473

MICHAEL ALEXANDER COLLINS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, individual capacity official capacity; DR. GARNETT, Dentist for ACDC; BRANDY GALLOWAY, individual capacity official capacity; NURSE ANGEL, individual capacity official capacity; S. DONALDSON, individual capacity official capacity; B. DEHAYES, individual capacity official capacity; NURSE CINDY, individual capacity official capacity; DOCTOR WILLIAMS, individual capacity official capacity , Defendants

- Appellees,
and AIKEN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 8:18

- cv
- 01811

- MGL )

Submitted : June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

A ffirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Michael Alexander Collins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Michael Alexander Collins appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and the district court’s order adopting the

recom mendation of the magistrate judge, denying Collins’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint

. Because the parties did not consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, and Collins did not challenge the magistrate judge’s orde r by objecting to the district court, the denial of his motion to appoint counsel is not subject to our appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), (c) (2012) ; Colo. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen
Constr. Co. , 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989); Gleason v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs. , 777 F.2d 1324, 1324 (8th Cir. 1985). Concerning the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge , we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Collins v. S. Health Partners , No. 8:18

- cv
- 1811

- MGL ( D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2019 )

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT99.3**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 5, 2002

 

 

 

 

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street NW

Washington, DC  50249

 

Re:                               Ciprico Inc.

File No. 0-11336

Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentleman:

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Ciprico Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Thomas S. Wargolet, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 
|   | /s/ Thomas S. Wargolet  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                2,564
<SECURITIES>                                          5,908
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                            125
<INVENTORY>                                           2,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     16,498
<PP&E>                                                5,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                        2,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       28,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5,146
<BONDS>                                               1,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 80
<OTHER-SE>                                           21,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         28,293
<SALES>                                               6,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     27,124
<CGS>                                                 3,044
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         9,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      3,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       5,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   3,343
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          3,343
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .34
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo – Sabesp (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jerson Kelman, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i)the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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. Date:May 15,2017 By:/s/Jerson Kelman Name:    Jerson Kelman Title:      Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000766004
<NAME>                        Sbarro, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     usd

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Apr-23-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         15789
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6525
<ALLOWANCES>                                   292
<INVENTORY>                                    3079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28694
<PP&E>                                         327387
<DEPRECIATION>                                 190375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          37719
<BONDS>                                        251427
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       71
<OTHER-SE>                                     96930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402024
<SALES>                                        104299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107550
<CGS>                                          20334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  49910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5559)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5194
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5194
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0




















</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0716n.06

Case No. 19-6482

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALFORD ROBINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. At his trial on an indictment as a felon in 

possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Alford Robinson stipulated that he was a convicted 

felon when he possessed two handguns. On February 21, 2019, the jury convicted him.

Prior to Robinson’s sentencing, the Supreme Court issued Rehaif v. United States, 

139 S.Ct. 2191, 2195 (2019), which interpreted § 922(g) as requiring the prosecution to prove both 

that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew that he belonged to the relevant category 

of people barred from possessing a firearm, in this case, convicted felons. Robinson moved the 

district court to vacate his conviction on several grounds, all stemming from the fact that the 

prosecution had not expressly charged or proven that he knew he was a convicted felon. 

The district court denied the motion, finding that any flaw in the indictment was ultimately 

harmless, that the evidence at trial (particularly Robinson’s stipulation) was sufficient to prove that 

Robinson knew he was a convicted felon, and that the error in the jury instruction was not plain 

error. United States v. Robinson, No. 2:17-CR-20046, 2019 WL 7985173 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 
No. 19-6482, United States v. Robinson

2

2019); see also, e.g., United States v. Ward, 957 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2020) (analyzing virtually 

identical arguments); United States v. Conley, 802 F. App’x 919 (6th Cir. 2020) (same). 

After carefully reviewing the law, the parties’ arguments, and the record evidence, we 

conclude that the district court correctly assessed the evidence at trial and correctly applied the law 

to this evidence. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful 

purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
Opinion issued March 21, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00824-CV

———————————

EUREKA! INVENTING, LLC, Appellant

V.

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-42416

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Eureka! Investing, LLC, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. 

More than ten days have elapsed since the filing of the motion, and no party has 

objected to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). No opinion has issued in this 
2

appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John S. Chen, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sybase, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2004
/s/ JOHN S. CHENJohn S. Chen
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00626

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.V. and E.V., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 03912
Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s order assessing $1,000.00 as sanctions is REVERSED. We RENDER judgment denying appellee

Rebecca Sweat’s motion for sanctions. The remainder of the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.
Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellee Rebecca Sweat.

SIGNED March 21, 2018.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 6, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.202 U.S. Deposits in Foreign Countries** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1844 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make technical corrections to 

the new border tunnels any passages offense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make technical 

corrections to the new border tunnels any passages offense. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OFFENSE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 27 of title 18, United 

5 States Code, is amended by redesignating section 554 

6 added by section 551(a) of the Department of Homeland 

7 Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109–295; 

8 120 Stat. 1389) (relating to border tunnels and passages) 

9 as section 555. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 1844 IS

1 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for 

2 chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 

3 by striking the item relating to section 554, ‘‘Border tun4 nels and passages’’, and inserting the following: 

‘‘555. Border tunnels and passages.’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL FORFEITURE. 

6 Section 982(a)(6)of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘554’’ and inserting ‘‘555’’. 

8 SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING 

9 COMMISSION. 

10 Section 551(d) of the Department of Homeland Secu11 rity Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 109–295; 120 

12 Stat. 1390) is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) by 

13 striking ‘‘554’’ and inserting ‘‘555’’. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC60 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1466

MR. PASCAL N. NOUNA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILBUR ROSS, Secretary Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standard 

and Technology,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01927-RWT)

Submitted: September 29, 2017 Decided: October 10, 2017

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pascal N. Nouna, Appellant Pro Se. Molissa Heather Farber, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pascal N. Nouna appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment 

discrimination complain. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Nouna v. Ross, No. 8:13-cv-01927-RWT (D. Md. Mar. 

17, 2017). We deny Nouna’s request for counsel. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.5 Net Increase in Liabilities and Its Relation to Net Acquisition of Financial Assets** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 6, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**D.1 Debt Growth by Sector1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-90465) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 33-85908, 33-61103, 333-18363, 333-42723, 333-90471 and 333-76298) of Synbiotics Corporation of our report dated February 28, 2003 relatingto the 2002 financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

**Levitz, Zacks & Ciceric**

 

San Diego, California 

March 28, 2003