alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                                 NABISCO, INC.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    YEAR ENDED
                                                                                                 DECEMBER 31, 1997
                                                                                                -------------------
<S>                                                                                             <C>
Earnings before fixed charges:
  Income before extraordinary item............................................................       $     431
  Provision for income taxes..................................................................             293
                                                                                                        ------
  Income before income taxes..................................................................             724
  Interest expense............................................................................             326
  Interest portion of rental expense..........................................................              28
                                                                                                        ------
Earnings before fixed charges.................................................................       $   1,078
                                                                                                        ------
                                                                                                        ------
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense............................................................................       $     326
  Interest portion of rental expense..........................................................              28
  Capitalized interest........................................................................               6
                                                                                                        ------
    Total fixed charges.......................................................................       $     360
                                                                                                        ------
                                                                                                        ------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges............................................................             3.0
                                                                                                        ------
                                                                                                        ------
</TABLE>
* 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. 01-30638

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY D. JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-222-2-B

--------------------

January 29, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry D. Jackson entered a conditional guilty plea to

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, being a

felon in possession of a firearm, and possession with intent to

distribute cocaine. He appeals his conviction on the ground of

the issue he preserved for appeal. 

The district court’s finding that Jackson consented to the

search was not clearly erroneous under the totality of the
No. 01-30638

-2-

circumstances in light of the testimony at the suppression

hearing that Jackson was not coerced into giving his consent. 

United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir. 1993); 

United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 938 (5th Cir. 1997). 

The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
Areas for discussi

• If we assume the need for a Ga

what are the desirable interface characteristics

• Primary to Gateway – non-stan• Gateway to Secondary – Stand

needed?

– Wireless– Optical
Physical Interfac

• If we assume wireless, could w

UHF leaky feeder/handheld aninterface as the standard

– Advantage is that two of the seco

systems have already built to this 

– Leaky feeder systems manufactu

use this type of interface

– Node manufacturers would need 

some interface in any case
Gateway Wireless Op

Air Interface

Gateway

Prim. Inf. Interface

UHF Analog Secondary Comms. Interface

SeSys
Physical Interface (c

• For an integrated solution is the

physical interface standard eve
Gateway Integrated O

Air Interface

Gateway

Access Point

Wired Interface

SecSys

Access Point
Protocols

• Are there any candidate protoc

contain desired functions

– Triggers– Wake up command– Priority flags
Gateways

• Are there any gateways that alr

some or all of the desired funct
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30,
2003 of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New
York.

Date:
August 14, 2003

| | /s/ CASEY J. SYLLACasey J. Sylla
Chairman of the Board and President            | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ STEVEN E. SHEBIKSteven E. Shebik
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 

E-6

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Kay Carter    
|Kay Carter        
|September 11, 2006
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

PING CHEN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70355

Agency No. A088-130-025

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ping Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

FILED

SEP 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70355

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

based on the inconsistencies in Chen’s testimony and application about the

presence of the house church pastor on the day petitioner was allegedly arrested,

and based on the fact that both his asylum application and his father’s letter

omitted the fact that his parents were allegedly forced to pay a significant fine. See

id. at 1047 (agency’s adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the

“totality of the circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974

(9th Cir. 2011) (BIA not compelled to accept petitioner’s explanations for

inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM RESERVE ENGINEERS



Dear Sirs:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form S-4 of portions of our reports entitled "UMC Petroleum Corporation,
Evaluation of Certain Interests in the State of Montana, SEC Parameters, as of
January 1, 1998", dated February 3, 1998; and "UMC Resources Canada Ltd.,
Evaluation of Oil & Gas Reserves, SEC Parameters, as of January 1, 1998", dated
January 27, 1998, (the "Reports") and to our having evaluated the Corporations'
interest in oil and gas reserves. We also consent to the reference of our firm
under the caption "Experts."



Sincerely,

MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LTD.





/s/ P. A. WELCH
-------------------------------
P. A. Welch, P. Eng.
Vice President


Calgary, Alberta
Dated:   September 1, 1998
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

BELA (BILL) VIDOR,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

GROUP, INC.; ROBERT “STEVE”

MILLER, Chairman of the Board of

Directors,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16828

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00315-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Bela (Bill) Vidor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his diversity action alleging state law and federal claims related to an

FILED

NOV 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16828

allegedly fraudulent stock transaction involving defendant American International

Group, Inc. (“AIG”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and

we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Vidor’s claims for fraud, negligent

misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel because Vidor failed to allege one or

more elements for a prima facie claim, and also failed to plead the circumstances

surrounding the alleged fraud or misrepresentation with particularity. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 9(b); Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th

Cir. 2008) (listing “very similar” elements of negligent misrepresentation and fraud

under California law); Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local No. 10, 966

F.2d 443, 445 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1992) (listing elements of promissory estoppel). 

The district court properly dismissed Vidor’s claims for breach of fiduciary

duty and violation of the Trust Indenture Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77aaa et seq. (the

“Act”), because the hybrid AIG securities that Vidor purchased did not create a

fiduciary relationship and exempted the transaction from the Act. See Shaffer v.

Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 215 n.44 (1977) (law of the state of incorporation governs

the liabilities of a corporation’s officers or directors); Simons v. Cogan, 549 A.2d

300, 303-04 (Del. 1988) (under Delaware law, convertible debenture does not
3 11-16828

make the investor a stockholder to whom a fiduciary duty lies); see also 15 U.S.C.

§ 77ddd(a)(2) (Act does not apply to “any certificate of interest or participation in

two or more securities having substantially different rights and privileges”).

Issues raised on appeal but not supported by argument, including with

respect to the district court’s denial of Vidor’s motion for injunctive relief and 

dismissal with leave to amend of Vidor’s original complaint, are deemed

abandoned. See Am. Int’l Enters., Inc. v. FDIC, 3 F.3d 1263, 1266 (9th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ACUMARINE TRANSPORTATION, )

 L.P., et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0159-KD-M

 )

M. R. MARINE, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the undersigned does hereby recuse herself from any and

all further involvement in this proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2010.

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00159-CG-N Document 60 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         208,222
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (144,230)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,222
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,350
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,605)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     94,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,939
<PP&E>                                       3,855,646
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,635,356)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,812,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,934,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    460,815
<COMMON>                                         2,458
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,263,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,812,267
<SALES>                                      2,037,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,037,536
<CGS>                                          550,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  550,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,166,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (711,480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (711,480)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (711,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (711,480)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended March 1, 2009,
(the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
 /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer  50
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 33-13995, 33-72438, 333-06025 and 333-88683)
pertaining to the Nashua Corporation 1987 Stock Option Plan, Nashua Corporation
Employees' Savings Plan, Nashua Corporation Amended 1996 Stock Incentive Plan
and the Nashua Corporation 1999 Shareholder Value Plan of our report dated
February 7, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Nashua Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
years ended December 31, 2003.

Manchester, New Hampshire                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
March 10, 2004                                      ---------------------
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE PRINCIPALUNDERWRITING AGREEMENTBETWEEN ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

AND ALLSTATE DISTRIBUTORS, L.L.C.

 

This AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (the “Amendment One”) is made and enteredinto this 1st day of October 2002 (the “Effective Date”) by andbetween Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York (“Allstate Life of New York”)and Allstate Distributors, L.L.C. (“Distributors”).

 

WHEREAS, Allstate Life of New York and Distributors are parties to thatcertain Principal Underwriting Agreement dated May 1, 2000 (the “UnderwritingAgreement”);

 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to revise the commission paymentstructure relating to the sale of certain variable insurance contractsdescribed in the Underwriting Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Underwriting Agreement toreflect their new agreement.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants,representations, warranties and agreements herein contained, the parties agreeas follows:

 

1.     The first sentence ofSection 5.01 Compensation, shall be replaced with the following:

 

Allstate Life of New York shall pay to Distributors commissionsdescribed in Exhibits 2.1.1, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 to the Third Amended and RestatedJoint Venture Agreement between The Allstate Corporation and PutnamInvestments, LLC dated October 1, 2002, (the “Joint Venture Agreement”).

 

2.               Except as specifically amended hereby, theUnderwriting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance withits terms.

 

4.     Capitalized terms used herein and nototherwise defined in this Amendment One shall have the meanings given to themin the Joint Venture Agreement.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused thisAmendment to be signed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers, all as ofthe day and year first written above.

 
| ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE | ALLSTATE DISTRIBUTORS, L.L.C.                            |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| COMPANY OF NEW YORK     |                                                     |   |   |
|                    |                                                     |   |   |
| By:                     |       /s/ Steven C. Verney |   | By: |       /s/ Barry S. Paul |   |
|                    |    Steven C. Verney                       |   |   |    Barry S. Paul |   |
|                    |                                                     |   |   |   |   |
| Title:                  |    Treasurer                              |   | Title: |    Assistant Treasurer |   |
|                    |                                                     |   |   |   |   |
| Date:                   |    May 1, 2005                            |   | Date: |    May 1, 2005 |   |
|                         |                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

E-2

----
J. 

at the sentencing hearing. 2Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause 

because his claim that trial counsel was ineffective was itself procedurally 

barred. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). 

Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in denying appellant's 

petition, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

11,A frea.4±, 

Hardesty 

J. 

2We note that appellant's reliance on Martinez is misplaced for two 

reasons. First, Martinez provides good cause based on ineffective 

assistance of post-conviction counsel for a federal court to consider claims 

that were procedurally defaulted in state court. This is appellant's first 

post-conviction petition; therefore, there is no claim of ineffective 

assistance of post-conviction counsel. Second, we have recently held that 

Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory post-conviction procedures. 

See Brown v. McDaniel, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 60, 

August 7, 2014). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Ralph Fuller 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A .ze/w4