alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>                                        
<TABLE>
					
						      EXHIBIT 12(b)


				COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
					     AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
				   SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


<CAPTION>

						 Twelve
						 Months
						 Ended
						 Jun. 28,                         Year Ended
						 1997 
(millions, except ratios)                        (unaudited)       1996     1995     1994     1993     1992 
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>       <C>     <C>      <C>      <C>
Fixed Charges 
 Interest and amortization of debt discount
  and expense on all indebtedness                 $1,372          $1,365   $1,373   $1,279   $1,318   $1,389

 Add interest element implicit in rentals            154             121      119      114      105      165
						   1,526           1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423    1,554
 Preferred dividend factor                            18              41       89      234      209      120
 Interest capitalized                                  4               5        4        1        3       23
Total fixed charges                               $1,548          $1,532   $1,585   $1,628   $1,635   $1,697

Income (loss) 
 Income (loss) from continuing operations         $1,145          $1,271   $1,025     $857     $625  ($1,812)
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss) 
  of unconsolidated companies                          3               8        9       (7)       6       (4)
						   1,142           1,263    1,016      864      619  ( 1,808)
Add 
 Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized 
  and preferred dividend factor)                   1,526           1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423    1,554
 Income taxes (benefit)                              858             834      703      614      329  ( 1,039)
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and                                                                   
     income taxes                                 $3,526          $3,583   $3,211   $2,871   $2,371  ($1,293)

Ratio of income to combined fixed charges 
 and preferred share dividends                      2.28            2.34     2.03     1.76     1.45    (A)

<FN> 
In 1996, all the 8.88% Preferred Shares, First Series were redeemed and therefore in 1997 the Company made no
other preferred share dividend payments. 


(A)  As a result of the loss for the year ended December 31, 1992, earnings did not cover fixed charges by
     $2,990 million.
</FN>
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,647]


Trane US, Inc., Residential Systems Division, Tyler, TX; Notice 
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated March 20, 2009, the International Union of 
Electronics, Electrical, Salaried Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE), 
AFL-CIO, Local 86782 requested administrative reconsideration of the 
negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The determination was issued on February 13, 2009. The 
Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on March 
3, 2009 (74 FR 9279).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of air conditioning units did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm. The 
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift production 
of air conditioning units to foreign countries during the period under 
investigation.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the 
workers of the subject firm manufactured components for air 
conditioners and that the subject firm shifted production of these 
components to Mexico during the relevant period. The petitioner also 
alleged that the subject firm has shifted production to China and that 
there was an increase in imports of air conditioning units from China.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11436 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 20

- 3430

_____________________________

W ILLIE J. E DWARDS ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

.
September 29, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

R OWE , C.J.

, and B.L. T HOMAS and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Richard M. Bracey

, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Sharon Traxler

, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ALBERT BALDISH, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 12 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Christopher A. ODOM, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director; Mary Brown, Clerk; Kerrie Specht, Parole Officer; Ralph Hunter, Dho; Mr. Steven, Case Worker; Mrs. Laverette; Mr. Hallman, Defendants—Appellees, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Insurance Policy Holder, Defendant.

No. 08-8614.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 28, 2009.

Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, John Eric Kaufmann, Donald Ray Settana, Jr., McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order accepting the recom*255mendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Odom v. Ozmint,*No. 3:07-cv-00343-PMD (D.S.C. Oct. 30, 2008). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
[908 NE2d 884, 880 NYS2d 894]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Carlos Aleman, Appellant.

Argued April 1, 2009;

decided April 30, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Office of the Appellate Defender,*New York City *(Richard M. Greenberg*and *Christina Graves*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Alice Wiseman*and *Hilary Hassler*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted for a new trial.

*807In response to a note from the deliberating jury stating that it was “hopelessly deadlocked” and that some jurors were inclined to acquit because defendant had spent some time in jail and deserved another chance, the trial court gave a lengthy, rambling instruction that chided the jury for not “following the rules” and implied that certain jurors had violated their promise that they would comply with the court’s instructions on the law. The court then adjourned deliberations and sent the jury home “to figure out whether, in your own [conscience], you are willing to follow the rules.”

The court did not, however, respond to the jury’s statement that it was deadlocked. By failing to appropriately address the possible deadlock, the trial court created a significant risk that jurors would interpret his remonstrations about “following the rules” as a direction that the jury must reach a verdict at all costs otherwise it would be breaking the rules. These repeated, strident statements by the court were not balanced by an instruction that jurors must not surrender their conscientiously held beliefs, as recommended in the pattern deadlock charge appearing in the Criminal Jury Instructions *(see*CJI2d[NY] Deadlock Charge).

Our holding here should not be interpreted as suggesting that trial courts can do nothing more than parrot the language in the CJI deadlock charge. We appreciate that responses to jury notes must be tailored to the circumstances at hand, as was the case here where there was a serious misconception by some jurors as to what were proper considerations in evaluating the evidence. But, the trial court having determined that a supplemental instruction was necessary, we cannot condone its failure to issue an appropriate and balanced deadlock instruction that, in tenor and substance, conveyed the principles reflected in the pattern charge, supplemented by a focused response to the other issues raised in the note *(see People v Aponte,*2 NY3d 304 [2004]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order reversed and a new trial ordered, in a memorandum.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00004-CV

______________________________

TRACY BIRCHER, Appellant

V.

MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORPORATION,

A CORPORATION, MS. FLANNAGAN, PAROLE OFFICER,

MR. TIMOTHY SCHOMP, PAROLE HEARING OFFICER, AND

DR. JOHNSON, DENTIST, Appellees

 

On Appeal from the 4th Judicial District Court

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-293

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal filed pro se by Tracy Bircher from the trial court's order dismissing his

cause of action against defendant Management Training Corporation. 

The order entered in this appeal, however, does not dispose of defendants

Ms. Rachel Flannagan, Mr. Timothy Schomp, or Dr. Johnson. 

The general rule is that a final and appealable judgment must determine the entire

controversy, disposing of all the parties and issues in a case. N. E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400

S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 295 S.W.2d 890, 892 (1956). 

Because the trial court's order dismissing this suit did not dispose of all defendants, it is not

final, and this is an interlocutory appeal from a nonappealable judgment. Accordingly, Bircher's

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: January 22, 2009

Date Decided: January 23, 2009
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.23  


 
 

MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
  OF
  MOLSON COORS CALLCO ULC    
    


	1.
	The
name of the Company is Molson Coors Callco ULC.



	2.
	There
are no restrictions on the objects and powers of the Company and the Company shall expressly have the following powers:



	(1)
	to
sell or dispose of its undertaking, or a substantial part thereof;



	(2)
	to
distribute any of its property in specie among its members; and



	(3)
	to
amalgamate with any company or other body of persons.






	3.
	The
liability of the members is unlimited. 





        I,
the undersigned, whose name, address and occupation are subscribed, am desirous of being formed into a company in pursuance of this Memorandum of Association, and I agree to take the
number and kind of shares in the capital stock of the Company written below my name. 



	 	 	/s/  CHARLES S. REAGH      
 Name of Subscriber: Charles S. Reagh

800-1959 Upper Water Street, Halifax, NS B3J 2X2

Occupation: Solicitor

Number of shares subscribed: One common share





TOTAL
SHARES TAKEN: one common share

Dated this 9th day of September, 2004. 



	Witness to above signature:	 	/s/  LORI EULOTH      
 Name of Witness: Lori Euloth

800-1959 Upper Water Street, Halifax, NS B3J 2X2

Occupation: Legal Assistant
	 	 	[SEAL]













QuickLinks


MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF MOLSON COORS CALLCO ULC
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

[CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC. LOGO]


                                  PRESS RELEASE
                              For immediate release


            CAMPBELL RESOURCES ANNOUNCES APPROVAL AND SANCTION OF THE
                              PLANS OF ARRANGEMENT


MONTREAL, JUNE 27, 2006 -- CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC. (TSX: CCH, OTC BULLETIN
BOARD: CBLRF) is pleased to announce that the plans of arrangement presented
earlier this month to the creditors of Campbell Resources Inc., Meston Resources
Inc. and MSV Resources Inc., under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the
"CCAA"), received the required approvals at a meeting of creditors held
yesterday in Chibougamau.

Today, the Superior Court sanctioned the plans and granted the Company an
extension to October 31, 2006, of the stay provided in the initial order granted
in June 2005.

The Company will now carry-out plans of arrangement and produce a prospectus
which will allow it to proceed, among other things, with a rights offering to
its shareholders for gross proceeds of up to 5 million dollars.

Campbell is a mining company focusing mainly in the Chibougamau region of
Quebec, holding interests in gold and gold-copper exploration and mining
properties.


Certain information contained in this release contains "Forward-Looking
Statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 and is subject to certain risks and uncertainties, including those "Risk
Factors" set forth in the Campbell's current Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
year ended December 31, 2005. Such factors include, but are not limited to:
differences between estimated and actual mineral reserves and resources; changes
to exploration, development and mining plans due to prudent reaction of
management to ongoing exploration results, engineering and financial concerns;
and fluctuations in the gold price which affect the profitability and mineral
reserves and resources of Campbell. Readers are cautioned not to place undue
reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date
hereof. Campbell undertakes no obligation to release publicly any revisions to
these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the
date hereof or to reflect unanticipated events or developments.



                                     - 30 -


FOR MORE INFORMATION :

<Table>
<Caption>
<S>                                                            <C>
CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC.                                        Renmark Financial Communications Inc.
Andre Fortier, President and Chief Executive Officer           Henri Perron, hperron@renmarkfinancial.com
Tel.: 514 875-9037                                             John Boidman, jboidman@renmarkfinancial.com
Fax:  514 875-9764                                             Tel.: 514 939-3989
afortier@campbellresources.com                                 Fax:  514 939-3717
                                                               www.renmarkfinancial.com
</Table>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3014 ALEXANDER GARCIA-RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in NY0752080161-I-1. ON MOTION Before PROST Circuit Judge. ORDER The Department of Veterans Affairs moves to reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent. Alexander Garcia-Rivera filed an appeal with the Board challenging the termination of his employment as a housekeeping aide. The Board concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Garcia-Rivera's claim because his appeal was untimely filed. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT 

### FEB 4 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date

cc: Alexander Garcia-Rivera Jane C. Dempsey, Esq. Michael Carney, Esq.
s20 Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FEB 0 4 2009 JAN HORBALY CLERK

2009-3014 2
A06A0535.

#### MARTINEZ v. THE STATE.

(629 SE2d 485)

Miller, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Carlos Martinez was found guilty on two counts of hijacking a motor vehicle, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In his sole enumeration on appeal, Martinez contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We find that the evidence was sufficient, and accordingly affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. *Short v. State,*234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998). We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

So viewed, the evidence reveals that Martinez and his compatriots approached two separate victims while Martinez brandished a shotgun. Martinez threatened the victims with the gun, and he and his companions stole both of the victims’ cars. This evidence sufficed to sustain Martinez’s convictions. See OCGA §§ 16-5-44.1 (b); 16-8-41 (a); 16-5-21 (a) (2); 16-11-106 (b) (1).

The jury was free to disbelieve Martinez’s testimony that he was coerced into threatening the victims at gunpoint and participating in the car thefts.

> It is quite true that [OCGA § 16-3-26] absolves one of guilt if the act is performed under such coercion that the person reasonably believes such act is the only way to prevent his immediate death or great bodily harm. But it was for the jury to determine as to whether such coercion was the reason for the [car thefts at gunpoint], and the jury decided that question adversely to the contentions of defendant.

*Syck v. State,*130 Ga. App. 50, 51 (202 SE2d 464) (1973); see also *Norris v. State,*227 Ga. App. 616, 620 (4) (489 SE2d 875) (1997) (“[C]oercion is a defense only if the person coerced has no reasonable *501way, other than committing the crime, to escape the threat of harm. That question is for the jury.”) (citations and punctuation omitted). The jury was free to disbelieve Martinez’s testimony and was authorized to find him guilty based on the evidence presented at trial.

Decided March 27, 2006.

*Maurice Brown,*for appellant.

*Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Marc A. Mallon, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 52-034-COL, ASLBP No. 09-886-09-COL-BD01, and 52-035-COL]

      ( print page 21837)    
                    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the                     **Federal Register,**37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations,                     *see*10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding:                

## Luminant Generation Company, LLC

### (Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4)

                    This proceeding concerns a Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing dated April 6, 2009 from the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition,                     *et al.,*                     that was submitted in response to a February 5, 2009 Notice of Order, Hearing, and Opportunity To Petition for Leave To Intervene (74 FR 6177). Petitioners challenge the application filed by Luminant Generation Company LLC pursuant to subpart C of 10 CFR part 52 for a combined license for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4, to be located in Somervell County, Texas.                

*The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:*

Ann Marshall Young, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,

Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,

Alice C. Mignerey, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of May 2009.

E. Roy Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-10930 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P