alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                     Exhibit 12


                                                        THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                                         COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                         FOR THE FIVE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JANUARY 29, 2000


(Dollars in Millions)                                                          Fiscal Year Ended
                                                      Jan. 29,     Jan. 30,      Jan. 31,       Feb. 1,       Feb. 3,
                                                       2000         1999          1998           1997          1996
<S>                                               <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges:
Pretax earnings from continuing operations        $   1,523     $   1,395     $   1,279      $  1,232      $  1,160
Fixed charges (excluding interest
  capitalized and pretax preferred stock
  dividend requirements)                                346           344           363           346           317
Dividends on ESOP Preference Shares                     (24)          (25)          (26)          (26)          (28)
Capitalized interest amortization                         7             7             6             6             5
                                                      1,852         1,721         1,622         1,558         1,454

Fixed Charges:
Gross interest expense (a)                        $     340     $     339     $     353      $    341      $    316
Interest factor attributable to
  rent expense                                           22            21            23            22            20
                                                        362           360           376           363           336

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                      5.1           4.8           4.3           4.3           4.3


(a)    Represents interest expense on long-term and short-term debt, ESOP debt and amortization of
       debt discount and debt issue expense.

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.7

                                    AGREEMENT

         Agreement made effective November 7, 1997, between BHL Capital
Corporation ("BHL Capital"), a South Dakota corporation having its principal
office at 3290 Lien Street, P.O. Box 505, Rapid City, South Dakota 57709, and
Concorde Gaming Corporation (and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, collectively
"Concorde'), having its principal office at 3290 Lien Street, Rapid City, South
Dakota.

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, Concorde is engaged in the general business of owning and
operating gaming companies, one of which is a partner in a joint venture ("Joint
Venture") in Miami, Florida, that intends to own and operate a gaming vessel off
the coast of Florida; and

         WHEREAS, Concorde desires to obtain funds and commercial credit for
operation of its business against its future revenues from the Joint Venture and
its other gaming operations; and

         WHEREAS, BHL Capital has allowed Concorde to use certain real estate
that BHL Capital owns, referred to herein as "Copper Oaks", as collateral for
some of Concorde's financing with the understanding that it will receive certain
fees, as described below, for doing so.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:

         1.       COMPENSATION. Concorde hereby agrees to pay BHL Capital on the
first business day of each month $10,625.00 for as long as Concorde uses Copper
Oaks as collateral for Concorde's financing. The fees shall equal $349.32 per
day and the monthly payment shall be pro rata in the event Copper Oaks is
released as collateral during a partial month.

         2.       TAXES. If at anytime BHL Capital shall be required to pay any
state, federal, or local sales or excise tax on sales or services performed
hereunder, the amount of the tax so paid by BHL Capital shall be charged to
Concorde's account.

         3.       SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be binding upon
the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.

         In witness whereof, the parties have executed this agreement at 3290
Lien Street, Rapid City, South Dakota effective the day and year first written
above.

BHL CAPITAL CORPORATION                CONCORDE GAMING CORPORATION


/s/ Bruce H. Lien                      /s/ Jerry L. Baum
----------------------------------     -----------------------------------
Bruce H. Lien, President               Jerry L. Baum, CEO & President
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha
Nutra, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Marc Urbach, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and will be retained by China
Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




August
      23, 2010
                      /s/ Marc UrbachMarc
      Urbach(Principal
      Executive
Officer)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4075

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount of 

capital losses which may offset ordinary income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2004

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. HOSTETTLER, and Mr. MILLER of 

Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the amount of capital losses which may offset ordinary 

income.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL LOSSES 

4 WHICH MAY OFFSET ORDINARY INCOME. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 1211(b) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limita7 tion on capital losses for taxpayers other than corpora8 tions) is amended by striking ‘‘$3,000 ($1,500’’ and in9 serting ‘‘$9,000 (1/2 such amount’’. 
2

•HR 4075 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 1211 of 

2 such Code (relating to limitation on capital losses) is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following new sub4 section: 

5 ‘‘(c) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable 

7 year beginning in a calendar year after 2004, the 

8 $9,000 amount contained in subsection (b)(1) shall 

9 be increased by an amount equal to—

10 ‘‘(A) such amount, multiplied by 

11 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter12 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

13 year in which the taxable year begins by sub14 stituting ‘calendar year 2003’ for ‘calendar year 

15 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

16 ‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—If any increase determined 

17 under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $1,000, 

18 such increase shall be rounded to the next highest 

19 multiple of $1,000.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

22 December 31, 2003.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6374

HENRY WATSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MACK JARVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-292-BR)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Debra C. Graves, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Watson v. Jarvis, No. CA-97-292-BR (E.D.N.C.

Jan. 29, 1998). 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
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Shareowners and Board of Directors
Maytag Corporation

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Number 333-46752 and Registration Statement Number 333-36054 on Forms S-8; and
Registration Statement Number 333-62980 on Form S-3 of Maytag Corporation and
in the related Prospectuses of our report dated January 22, 2002, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Maytag Corporation
included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 18, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA GUADALAUPE TAPIAHERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73811 

Agency No. A076-846-703 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Maria Guadalaupe Tapia-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to 

reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 

785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Tapia-Hernandez’s 

motion to reopen based on lack of notice, where the Notice to Appear was sent by 

certified mail to her correct address, she did not show that the certified mail receipt 

was not signed by a responsible person at that address, and her counsel appeared in 

court on the date of her hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1), 1229a(b)(5)(A), 

(C)(ii); cf. Chaidez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1079, 1083-86 (9th Cir. 2007) (service of 

an Order to Show Cause sent by certified mail is effective when the return receipt 

is signed by the alien or a responsible person at the alien’s address (emphasis 

added)).

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Tapia-Hernandez’s

motion to reopen where she did not establish that exceptional circumstances 

prevented her from attending her 1998 hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). 

We reject Tapia-Hernandez’s contention that the IJ failed to address 

evidence or arguments. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 

2010).
3 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04699

Honorable John Z. Lee

TikTok Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, October 5, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:The telephone dial in number

for the 11/4/20 status hearing is 872−703−5321, conference ID 676396712#. The hearing

will take place via Microsoft Teams. All persons granted remote access to proceedings are

reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting

of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in court−imposed

sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future

hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by

the Court. All participants should review the Court's standing order regarding telephone

conferences that is on Judge Lee's website, which can be found at:

https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge−.info.aspx?4Qf 5zc8loCI5U7rfMP9DHw==.Mailed

notice(ca, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 95 Filed: 10/05/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1772
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIK TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

VICTOR LEMUS; JOAQUIN RINCON, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No.15-56117 

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09614-FMO-SS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Erik Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a 

jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and other 

constitutional violations related to his arrest and prosecution. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-56117 

We are unable to consider Taylor’s contentions that the district court erred 

by entering judgment for defendants because Taylor failed to provide any portion 

of the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to 

urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is 

contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all 

evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 

924 F.2d 167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for 

failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

The motion to withdraw as pro bono counsel for appellant (Docket Entry 

No. 22) is granted. Upon more detailed review of the record, the March 22, 2016

and May 9, 2017 orders regarding the appointment of pro bono counsel are

vacated. This appeal is removed from the court’s pro bono program and the Clerk 

shall amend the docket to reflect that appellant is proceeding pro se.

Taylor’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 11, 23) are 

denied.

AFFIRMED.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Searchlight Minerals Corp. - Exhibit 10.22



  

  AMENDMENT 

    TO ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT  

  

WHEREAS:

	A.	 Nanominerals Corp. (“NMC”) and Searchlight
        Minerals Corp. (formerly Phage Genomics Inc.) (“SMC”) entered
        into an assignment agreement dated for reference effective as of the 1st
        day of June, 2005 (the “Assignment Agreement”); and

	 	 
	B. 	NMC and SMC wish to amend the terms of the Assignment Agreement in the
      manner set out below,


For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
  of which is hereby acknowledged, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

	1.	 that the Assignment Agreement be amended by
      deleting subparagraph 2)d. in its entirety and be replaced with the following:
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	2) d.	Confirmation to NMC, on or before September 15,
        2005, that SMC is in receipt of the funds from the underwriting agreement
        with Dominick & Dominick in the amount of One Million Five Thousand
        Dollars ($1,500,000.00) less commissions; and

	 	 	 	 
	2.	 This Amendment Agreement
        may be executed in counterparts which together shall form one and the
        same instrument. 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment Agreement
  as of the 31st day of August, 2005.

	NANOMINERALS CORP.

      a Nevada corporation by its 

      authorized signatory:	SEARCHLIGHT MINERALS CORP.

      a Nevada corporation by its 

      authorized signatory:
	 	 
	” Charles S. Ager”	 “K. Ian Matheson”
	Signature of Authorized Signatory	Signature of Authorized Signatory
	 	 
	Dr. Charles S. Ager	K. Ian Matheson
	Name of Authorized Signatory	Name of Authorized Signatory
	 	 
	Chairman	President
	Position of Authorized Signatory	Position of Authorized Signatory
| Exhibit 99.4 **Bear Stearns Series 2004-HE4****Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to****Certificateholders****for January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004****Ending Principal****Class****Principal****Interest****Balance**R-I 0.00 0.00 0.00 R-III 0.00 0.00 0.00 R-X 0.00 0.00 0.00 A-1 39,483,286.71 1,202,593.03 88,642,713.29 A-2 23,111,987.44 832,723.11 51,888,012.56 A-3 0.00 434,105.80 33,884,000.00 CE 0.00 7,722,276.53 7,702,986.50 M-1 0.00 230,907.78 17,776,000.00 M-2 0.00 243,886.83 14,220,000.00 M-3 0.00 84,144.07 4,444,000.00 M-4 0.00 70,424.74 3,259,000.00 M-5 0.00 84,217.45 3,555,000.00 M-6 0.00 99,255.15 2,963,000.00 M-7 0.00 178,612.38 5,332,000.00 P 0.00 1,319,701.52 100.00 R-II 0.00 0.00 0.00 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3912

For the relief of Rafael Camacho, Rosa B. Camacho, and Rosa Camacho. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2004

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Rafael Camacho, Rosa B. Camacho, and 

Rosa Camacho.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RAFAEL 

4 CAMACHO, ROSA B. CAMACHO, AND ROSA 

5 CAMACHO. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

7 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act, Rafael Camacho, Rosa B. Camacho, and Rosa 

9 Camacho shall each be eligible for issuance of an immi10 grant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

11 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 
2

•HR 3912 IH 

1 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec2 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

3 permanent resident. 

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Rafael Camacho, 

5 Rosa B. Camacho, or Rosa Camacho enters the United 

6 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 

7 he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained 

8 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad9 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

10 and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of 

11 this Act. 

12 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

13 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap14 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica15 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

16 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Rafael Camacho, Rosa B. Camacho, and Rosa 

20 Camacho, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 

21 officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 

22 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

23 made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

24 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

25 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
3

•HR 3912 IH 

1 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

2 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

Æ