alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                 CASE CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                                      AND
                  THE FARM AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT BUSINESS
                                OF TENNECO INC.
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                            AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               YEARS ENDED
                                                               DECEMBER 31,
                                                              ----------------
                                                              1996  1995  1994
                                                              ----  ----  ----
<S>                                                           <C>   <C>   <C>
Net Income................................................... $316  $337  $131
Add:
  Interest...................................................  160   174   160
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense...................    4     6   --
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor.......   12    12    11
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income...............  185    81    93
  Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries...............    3     2     2
  Extraordinary loss (net of taxes)..........................   33   --      5
  Cumulative effect of change in accounting principles (net
   of taxes).................................................  --      9    29
                                                              ----  ----  ----
    Earnings as defined...................................... $713  $621  $431
                                                              ====  ====  ====
Interest..................................................... $160  $174  $160
Interest capitalized.........................................    1     2     3
Amortization of capitalized debt expense.....................    4     6   --
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor.........   12    12    11
Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries.................    3     2     2
                                                              ----  ----  ----
    Fixed charges as defined................................. $180  $196  $176
                                                              ====  ====  ====
Preferred dividends:
  Amount declared............................................ $  7  $  7  $  3
  Gross-up to pre-tax based on 35%, 19% and 36% effective
   rates, respectively....................................... $ 11  $  9  $  5
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividends... 3.73x 3.03x 2.38x
                                                              ====  ====  ====
</TABLE>
#### J. E. Mills *v. Joseph*Ray et al.

Lien for Purchase Money — Waiver of.

A conveyance, that fails to recite what portion of the consideration was unpaid, will retain no lien on the land embraced therein.

APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 8, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The deed from Bay and wife to Miller contains no statement that any part of the purchase money remained unpaid; on the contrary the recital therein that the conveyance was made in consideration of “eight hundred dollars” without stating when or how it was paid the implication would be that the money was all paid then.

The vendors, Bay and wife, having conveyed the land and having failed to state what part of the purchase money was unpaid under *560the statute waived their lien, as was held by this court in *Chapman, etc., vs. Stockwell, etc., 18 B. M., 650,*and subsequent cases. Wherefore, so much of the judgment as adjudged to appellee a lien on the land for the satisfaction of his debt is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition so far as it seeks to subject the land to sale to enforce the lien, but the personal judgment against appellant is *affirmed.*

*Farleigh, Walker, for appellant.*

*Coale & Johnson, for appellees.*
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








I, Salil Dhaumya, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Pan American GoldfieldsLtd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2011 (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 Company.








Date:  March 13, 2012





/S /Salil Dhaumya


_________________________________


Salil Dhaumya


Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Gemini IV","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8wk4ARx4dm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/gemini-iv\/\">Gemini IV<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/gemini-iv\/embed\/#?secret=8wk4ARx4dm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Gemini IV” — NASA\" data-secret=\"8wk4ARx4dm\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/s65-30432\/s65-30432~large.jpg?w=600&h=1894&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1894}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 7, 2017

p0531 

# Order

Clerk June 7, 2017

154748

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154748

COA: 333163

Wayne CC: 77

- 006407

- FC

JOHN R. PORTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gale Boyes, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Banner Health, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02502-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 The Court having been notified that this matter has settled in its entirety (Doc. 27), 

 IT IS ORDERED this action will be dismissed with prejudice by the Clerk’s 

Office without further notice on April 22, 2016, unless prior thereto a request for 

reinstatement on the Court’s trial calendar is filed herein. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all pending motions are denied with leave to 

reinstate should this matter fail to finalize. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the March 23, 2016 scheduling conference is 

VACATED. 

 Dated this 22nd day of March, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02502-ROS Document 28 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 1
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30289

CHRISTINE CARMOUCHE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

AFFILIATED BLIND OF LOUISIANA, 

INC., ET AL., 

Defendants,

AFFILIATED BLIND OF LOUISIANA, 

INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1808)

December 8, 1997

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

In this case, grounded in racial discrimination claims by

Plaintiff-Appellant Christine Carmouche, the district court granted
2

a summary judgment in favor of her former employer, DefendantAppellant Affiliated Blind of Louisiana, Inc., dismissing the

claims of Carmouche for failure to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination under Title VII. More specifically, the district

court determined that Carmouche was not constructively discharged

and that she failed to produce sufficient summary judgment evidence

to support an inference of discriminatory intent. 

From our careful de novo review of the summary judgment record

from the district court, the facts evident therefrom and from

briefs of able counsel, and the legal arguments presented by

counsel in their appellate briefs and their arguments to this

court, we can discern no reasonable basis in fact or law for

reversing the determination of the district court. Consequently,

the judgment of that court dismissing Carmouche’s action is, in all

respects, 

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Lunar Orbiter 2","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BzaYnhWTZK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/lunar-orbiter-2\/\">Lunar Orbiter 2<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/lunar-orbiter-2\/embed\/#?secret=BzaYnhWTZK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lunar Orbiter 2” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BzaYnhWTZK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/lunar-orbiter-moon-jf.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":566}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-77","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dBs5MEQ1hM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-77\/\">STS-77<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-77\/embed\/#?secret=dBs5MEQ1hM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-77” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dBs5MEQ1hM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/STS077-S-002\/STS077-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Australian Tracking Facility","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"k9b2IDf58b\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/sony-dsc-9\/\">Australian Tracking Facility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/sony-dsc-9\/embed\/#?secret=k9b2IDf58b\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Australian Tracking Facility” — NASA\" data-secret=\"k9b2IDf58b\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/canberra-atf-01.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":402}
#### Robert Radford *v.*W. G. Radford.

Bail — Recognizance—Forfeiture—Action by Surety Against Principal — Defense.

It is no defense to an action by a surety to recover money paid on a forfeited recognizance, that the principal at the time of the forfeiture was under arrest and in the custody of the officers of the U. S. Government.

APPEAR FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 17, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The appellant, having become the bail of the appellee for his appearance in the Christian circuit court, was proceeded against on a forfeiture of the recognizance, and adjudged to pay the Commonwealth the sum of $300. And having been compelled to pay about $132.50 of that sum, including costs, he brought this suit against the appellee as his principal in the recognizance, for its recovery.

By the answer of the defendant, which was substantially sustained by the evidence, he was at the time of said forfeiture, under arrest and in the custody of the officers of the Government of the United States, so that it was at the time, not physically in his power to appear in discharge of his recognizance, and the plaintiff, though apprised of this, afterwards when served in the proceeding of the Commonwealth, failed to plead the fact in his defense, by which he might, as the defendant alleged, have avoided the judgment against him.

On a trial by the court, without the intervention of a jury, the defense was sustained, and the petition dismissed, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

Whether the reasons assigned and proved, for the non-appearance of the appellee, would if pleaded, have constituted a sufficient defense to the proceeding against the bail, yet as it appears that before- the judgment was rendered against the bail, the appel*420lee was released from the custody of the Federal officers and free to surrender himself to answer the charge of the Commonwealth, and might thereby have enabled his bail to obtain the remission of the.whole or part of the sum specified in the recognizance, under the provisions of section 94 of the Criminal Code, but failed thereby or otherwise, to aid his bail in avoiding a recovery against him in consequence of his forefeiture, it seems to us the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the action, and that the judgment is, therefore, erroneous.

Campbell, *for appellant.*

*Phelps & Son, for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings .not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### Howard T. PETERSON, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 04-7678.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 11, 2005.

Decided March 18, 2005.

Howard T. Peterson, III, Appellant pro se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Howard T. Peterson, III, seeks to appeal from the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and 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*
423 A.2d 1310

#### McGee, Appellant, v. City of Philadelphia et al.

Argued March 22, 1979.

Joseph V. Restifo, for appellant; Thomas J. Gaffney, for appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.

Order affirmed.