alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12MERCK & CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESComputation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges($ in millions except ratio data)                           Years Ended December 31,   2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002 Income from Continuing Operations                        Before Taxes $3,370.7  $6,221.4  $7,363.9  $7,974.5  $9,051.6  $9,651.7  Add (Subtract):                        One-third of rents  66.4   67.8   68.2   71.9   75.6   67.2 Interest expense, gross  384.3   375.1   385.5   293.7   350.9   390.6 Interestcapitalized, net of amortization  31.8   29.4   (1.0)  (21.3)  (30.1)  (36.9)Equity(income) loss from affiliates, net of distributions  (454.3)  (362.5)  (615.9)  (421.2)  79.2   (156.1)Preferred stock dividends, net of tax  120.0   120.0   120.0   151.0   150.9   164.3                    Earnings from Continuing Operations $3,518.9  $6,451.2  $7,320.7  $8,048.6  $9,678.1  $10,080.8                                             One-third of rents $66.4  $67.8  $68.2  $71.9  $75.6  $67.2 Interest expense, gross  384.3   375.1   385.5   293.7   350.9   390.6 Preferred stock dividends  158.1   166.0   166.7   207.1   215.6   234.7                    FixedCharges from Continuing Operations $608.8  $608.9  $620.4  $572.7  $642.1  $692.5                                             Ratio ofEarnings to Fixed Charges                         from Continuing Operations  6   11   12   14   15   15                    For purposes of computing these ratios, “earnings” consist of income from continuing operationsbefore taxes, one-third of rents (deemed by the Company to be representative of the interest factorinherent in rents), interest expense, net of amounts capitalized, equity (income) loss fromaffiliates, net of distributions, and dividends on preferred stock of subsidiary companies. “Fixedcharges” consist of one-third of rents, interest expense as reported in the Company’s consolidatedfinancial statements and dividends on preferred stock of subsidiary companies. Interest expensedoes not reflect interest on Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, (“FIN 48”)liabilities.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAULA K. STONE, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. BAYER CORPORATION DISABILITY PLANS, erroneously sued as Bayer Corporation Long Term Disability Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan and BAYER CORPORATION, an Indiana corporation, Defendants - Appellants. No. 10-35665 D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00356-BR
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2011 ** Portland, Oregon Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

# FILED
JUL 20 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSDefendants appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. For the reasons stated in the district court’s well-written and well-reasoned Opinion and Order of January 15, 2010, we affirm. AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ANDRE ROYAL, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:16-cr-00317-BO-2; 5:19-cv-00231-

BO)

Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Royal, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Andre Royal seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Royal has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo
F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III      
|Leo F. Wells, III          
|Principal Executive Officer
|August 8, 2007             



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams    
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 8, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   162982
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      50738
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               283,003
<PP&E>                                       1,762,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,353,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,276,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       242,236
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,745,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,353,846
<SALES>                                        219,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,494,572
<CGS>                                          174,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  875,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             182,831 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                295,269 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            295,269 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   295,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .009
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .009
        

</TABLE>
Appendix C: ROC plots for each SDK. 

The ROC plots are shown in four different groups. First are the plots for DOS-C, 

DHS2-C, VISIT, BEN, DHS10, and TXDPS. Next are ROC plots in which the TAR 

scale is from 0.95-1.0, showing better detail for the higher scoring SDKs. The third 

group of ROC plots is for OHIO data and the final group of ROC plots is for SD29 data. 

C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
The next ten ROC curves are with the TAR scale changed to 0.95-1.0. 

C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
The plots for the OHIO (p2p) data start here.

C-17
C-18
C-19
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
C-25
C-26
The plots for the OHIO (p2r) data start here.

C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32
C-33
C-34
C-35
C-36
The plots for the SD29 (p2p) data start here.

C-37
C-38
C-39
C-40
C-41
C-42
C-43
C-44
C-45
C-46
The plots for the SD29 (p2r) data start here.

C-47
C-48
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
C-53
C-54
C-55
C-56
The plots for the SD29 (r2r) data start here.

C-57
C-58
C-59
C-60
C-61
C-62
C-63
C-64
C-65
C-66
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in (1) the Registration
Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-43837, (2) the Registration Statement on
Form S-8, File No. 333-43839, (3) the Registration Statement on Form S-8, File
No. 333-72939, (4) the Registration Statement on the Form S-3, File No.
333-81037 and (5) the Registration Statement on Form S-8, File No. 333-102701 of
our report dated February 13, 2003 on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of Siebert Financial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002
and 2001 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2002 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, we consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3.

Eisner LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 2003
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4478

AN ACT

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small

Business Investment Act of 1958 through July 23, 2004,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4478 EH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER SMALL

3 BUSINESS ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS INVEST4 MENT ACT OF 1958.

5 The authorization for any program, authority, or pro6 vision, including any pilot program, that was extended

7 through June 4, 2004, by section 1 of Public Law 108–

8 217 is further extended through July 23, 2004, under the

9 same terms and conditions.

10 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

11 Section 2 of Public Law 108–205 is amended by

12 striking ‘‘October 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘March 15,

13 2004’’. The amendment made by the preceding sentence

14 shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the

15 section to which it relates.

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4478

AN ACT

To provide for an additional temporary extension of

July 23, 2004, and for other purposes.Small Business Investment Act of 1958 throughprograms under the Small Business Act and the
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

In connection
with the Annual Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Joseph M. Ramos, Jr., in my capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

(1) the
Report filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the
Company for the period covered by the report.

|                           |                       
|-------------------------- | ----------------------
|/s/ Joseph
  M. Ramos, Jr. | Date: March
  31, 2006
|Joseph M.
  Ramos, Jr.     |                       
|Chief
  Financial Officer  |                       

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by section 906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be
retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### James D. Duncan, etc., *v.*Luther Carpenter, etc.

Wills — Acceptance of Favorable Provisions — Estoppel.

Where a devisee accepts the provisions of the will, beneficial to him, he is estopped from objecting to that part unfavorable to his interest.

APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 14, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

As to the main question arising on the original appeal, whether or not the first sets of Edmund Duncan’s children were properly held accountable for the value of the land devised to them in the second codicil to the will, we are of the opinion that whether *34the terms of the will are such as to devise the whole estate or not, within the meaning of the 17th section of chapter 30, Revised Statutes, we are of the opinion from the entire will, that the testator in making the devise of the land in the said second codicil, did not intend, further than may have been unavoidably necessary to alter his previously expressed purpose of affectuat-ing “an equitable” distribution of his estate among all his children.

*Dulaney, for appellants.*

And that he meant by this an equal distribution, as nearly as practicable, including both the land derived by his first wife, and the slaves given to the younger class of children by Margaret Bakey (after conferring on the family remaining at the homestead particular advantages), seems to be reasonably certain from his failure'to relieve the second class of children of the previous charge’,of the slaves to them, and the expression of the wish, in the clause devising the land, that the balance of his estate be disposed of as provided in his “foregoing will.”

Upon the cross appeal, we concur with the court below that •the devisees of said slaves are estopped from objecting to being charged with them by their acceptance of the provisions of the will beneficial to them. And we perceive no error in the judgment with reference either to the land or slaves as to the amounts charged therefor, or the time of charging those amounts. Nor is there, in our opinion, any available error in the judgment.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed, • both on the appeal and cross-appeal.
Exhibit 10.2


                          SECOND AMENDMENT TO TERM LOAN
                              AND CREDIT AGREEMENT


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT dated to be effective as of May 28, 1999, is between LA
CANASTA OF MINNESOTA, INC. (the "Borrower") and NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL
ASSSOCIATION (the "Bank").

BACKGROUND

The Borrower and the Bank entered into a Term Loan and Credit Agreement dated
June 24, 1998, which was amended by a First Amendment dated March 5, 1999 (as
amended, the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the Bank extended to the Borrower a
(i) a $1,200,000.00 conditional revolving line of credit; and (ii) a
$1,293,352.84 term loan.

In consideration of the premises, the Bank and the Borrower agree that the
Agreement is hereby amended as of the date of this Second Amendment as follows:

1. Section 1.23 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated
as follows:

        "1.23 "Termination Date" shall mean August 31, 1999."

2. The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the Bank as follows:

              A.    The Agreement, as amended by this Second Amendment,
                    constitutes valid, legal and binding obligations owed by the
                    Borrower to the Bank, subject to no counterclaim, defense,
                    offset, abatement or recoupment.

              B.    As of the date first written above, (i) all of the
                    representations and warranties contained in the Agreement
                    are true, and (ii) there exists no event of default
                    described in the Agreement, nor does there exist any event
                    which, with the giving of notice or the passage of time, or
                    both, could become such an event of default.

              C.    The execution, delivery and performance of this Second
                    Amendment by the Borrower are within its corporate powers,
                    have been duly authorized, and are not in contravention of
                    law or the terms of the Borrower's Articles of Incorporation
                    or By-laws, or of any undertaking to which the Borrower is a
                    party or by which it is bound.

3.      Except as expressly modified by this Second Amendment, the Agreement
        remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Bank have executed this Second
Amendment to be effective as of the date and year first above written.

Dated:  June 22, 1999

LA CANASTA OF                       NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA,
MINNESOTA, INC.                      NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

By: /s/ A. Merrill Ayers            By: /s/ Paul G. Rebholz

Its: Senior Vice President and CFO  Its: Vice President

                                 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Sparta Foods, Inc. hereby consents to the foregoing Second Amendment and
acknowledges that its guaranty dated June 24, 1998 remains in full force and
effect.

June 22, 1999                    SPARTA FOODS, INC.


                                 By: /s/ A. Merrill Ayers
                                 Its: Senior Vice President and CFO
#### Roger Dale WELCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Diana K. BUTLER, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-56299.

D.C. No. CV-98-02993-ER.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roger Dale Welch appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus challenging his conviction for assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, with a sentence enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. We review the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de *548novo. *Dows v. Wood,*211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000).

Welch contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with and present the testimony of a medical expert. We may not grant federal habeas relief on Welch’s claim unless a state court’s ruling “resulted in a decision that was contrary to or, an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *Weighall v. Middle,*215 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.2000).

The California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Welch was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to present medical expert testimony was not an unreasonable application of *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Expert testimony proposed by Welch would have been cumulative on the issue of the victim’s credibility and would not have disproved that she suffered from post-concussion syndrome, a separate basis to support the great bodily injury allegation.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fiscal Year 2022 Extramural Construction Grants

Recipient Project

Burlington Technical Center Burlington Aviation Technology

Center Facility

Fort Hayes State University Renovation of Forsyth Library

Kansas State University Salina Aerospace 

and Technology Campus

Acquisition and Renovation of Aerospace 

Simulation Center

Missouri State University Ozark Health and Life Science Center

University of Maine Green Engineering and Materials Research 

Factory of the Future

University of New Hampshire Jackson Estuarine Lab Expansion and 

Renovation

University of South Alabama College of 

Medicine

Renovation and Expansion of Research 

Facilities
Abatement Order filed November 17 , 20 1 1

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 541

- CV

____________ TAHIR ENTERPRISES, INC. and TAHIR MAHMOOD , Appellant s

V.

REDH A INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., AYSHA INVESTMENTS, INC., and

MANUEL EDUARDO GONZALEZ , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009

- 03521



### A B A T E M E N T O R D E R
This court has been notified that appellant, Tahir Mahmood , has petitioned for voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, under cause number 11

- 80597 . Because a stay is automatically effected by Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, we have stayed all proceedings in the appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.2

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, this court
orders the cause abated and treated as a closed case. I t may be reinstated on motion of any party, showing the stay has been lifted and specifying what further action, if any, is required from this court
, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its own motion

. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.3.

PER CURIAM